Delay to the spot
- (a) Becomes a police officer Reasonable grounds for suspicion that an offense has been committed, he may detain a person who can provide him with information relating to that offense, In order to ascertain his identity and address and in order to interrogate him in the place where he was found; He may also summon him to a nearby police station on a reasonable date to be determined for the purpose of carrying out those actions.
(b) [...]
- If so, Section 67 Law The Arrests establishes a specific explicit arrangement, according to which a police officer may demand that a person suspected of committing an offense identify himself, only if the police officer has "Reasonable basis to suspect" that the person has committed, or is about to commit, an offense. Also, Section 68 states that a police officer may demand from a person - who can provide information in relation to an offense that is suspected to have been committed - Identify yourself, if there is "Reasonable Basis" to this suspicion. As will be detailed below, this condition of "reasonable basis for suspicion" is the formula set by the legislature for a balance between the need to give the police tools to fulfill its duties and the need to protect human rights.
00 In contrast, Section 4A(5) of the Procedure expresses an interpretation of Section 2 to the law, according to which a police officer is authorized to require a person to identify himself by means of an identity card, also due to "Concern" - which does not necessarily amount to a "reasonable basis for suspicion" - that that person has committed, or is about to commit, an offense; or that an offense was committed that the person witnessed.
0
- Thus, in practice, section 4a(5) of the procedure, which suffices with the existence of only a "fear" of the commission of an offense, lowers the explicit threshold set by the legislature In Sections 68-67 Law The Arrests - "Reasonable basis for suspicion" - For the purpose of exercising the power to require a person to identify himself in the event of a suspicion of committing an offense. Thus, this section of the procedure renders the aforementioned balancing formula set forth in the aforementioned sections of the Law meaningless The Arrests, in a manner that is inconsistent with the rules of interpretation that apply to us, as explained above. Therefore, in accordance with these rules, the To the section 2 The law has the meaning attributed to it in section 4a(5) of the procedure.
- This conclusion can be illuminated from another angle.
Acceptance of the interpretation attributed in section 4a(5) of the procedure To the section 2 The Identity Card Law will lead to a contradiction between him and the Sections 68-67 Law The Arrests. Thus, while the latter sections require the existence of a "reasonable basis for suspicion" as a condition for requiring identification from a suspect in the commission of an offense, section 2 of the law - In accordance with its interpretation in accordance with Section 4A(5) of the Procedure - For this purpose, it requires only "fear," which does not amount to "reasonable grounds for suspicion." As is well known, such a contradiction between the provisions of a normative equal status law will be decided according to two main rules: the late legislation prevails over the earlier one; And the special enactment prevails over the general (see, among many: High Court of Justice 6299/21 Lawyers Association for the Promotion of Good Administration v. Kaabia Local Council Tabash Hajjara, verse 43 [Nevo] (8.11.2023) (hereinafter: High Court of Justice 6299/21); High Court of Justice 5555/18 MK Akram Hasson v. Knesset of Israel, paragraph 6 of the judge's judgment v. Hendel [Nevo] (July 8, 2021) (hereinafter: Interest The Nation-State Law); Lightning - General Interpretation Theory, p. 540).