Purposes of Section 2 of the Identity Card Law
- As noted in the matter Tabqa, the legislature's intention in relation to To the section 2 The law should have allowed the competent bodies "Distinguish between residents and those who are allowed to stay in Israel legally and can therefore present appropriate documents, and illegal infiltrators who are not allowed to stay in Israel and who may, as a result, pose a security risk" (paragraphs 27-28 of the judgment). Also, Section 2 The law is intended to strike a balance between objective purposes that are primarily concerned with providing the police with tools to fulfill their duties, on the one hand; and the protection of human rights, on the other hand (see: Tabqa, verses 29-31).
- When we come to examine the relationship between these purposes of Section 2 Between the Law and Section 4A(5) of the Procedure, we must keep in mind a basic interpretive principle, which is the aspiration to achieve "harmony" between the legislation subject to interpretation and its normative environment. This principle is based on the assumption that every piece of legislation is intended to be faithfully woven into the fabric of the legislation that surrounds it, and not to contradict other legislation (see: Special Court 1/62 Abu Angela v. Registrar of the Residents Registry Office, Tel Aviv-Yafo, verse 9 [Nevo] (5.12.1963)); Aharon Barak Interpretation in a sentence - General Interpretation Theory, 540 (1992) (hereinafter: Lightning - General Interpretation Theory)); For as we know, "A piece of legislation does not stand in its isolation. It is part of the legislative system. It integrates into it, while striving for legislative harmony" (High Court of Justice 693/91 Efrat v. Commissioner of the Population Registry at the Ministry of the Interior, verse 15 [Nevo] (March 29, 1993)). From this interpretive approach, it follows, inter alia, that similar arrangements, which balance the same values, should be interpreted in a way that maintains an identical balancing formula (see, for example: High Court of Justice 399/85 Kahane v. Board of Directors of the Broadcasting Authority, verse 32 [Nevo] (27.7.1987)); and that one should avoid, as a rule, the interpretation of a piece of legislation in such a way as to lead to the emptiness of the content of another piece of legislation (see, for example: Aharon Barak). Interpretation in a sentence - Interpretation of the Legislation, 330-334 (1993) (hereinafter: Lightning - Interpretation of the Legislation)).
- In our case, section 4a(5) of the procedure seeks to read into the Section 2 The Identity Cards Law has an arrangement regarding the conditions under which a police officer is authorized to require a person to identify himself by means of an identity card, when that person is suspected of committing an offense or witnessed it. According to the arrangement embodied in section 4a(5) of the procedure, such authority is formed only in the event of a "concern" that the person has committed, or is about to commit, an offense; or "fear" that an offense had been committed and that person was a witness to it.
- However, the question under what conditions a police officer is authorized to require a person to identify himself when that person is suspected of committing an offense or witnessed it is regulated Explicitly In Sections 68-67 Law The Arrests, which states as follows:
Suspicious detention at the scene
- (a) Becomes a police officer Reasonable grounds for suspicion that a person has committed an offense, or that he is about to commit an offense that may endanger the safety or security of a person, or the public safety or the security of the state, He may detain him in order to ascertain his identity and address Or to interrogate him and give him documents, where he is located.
(b) [...]