The lack of this option is not only due to considerations of efficiency and urgency, but also to the fact that it is not possible to know in advance which cameras will be relevant. For example, if the police are required to trace the driving lanes of the Mitsubishi in the industrial zone in Holon and its route back to Lod, how can they know in advance what the driving lane is and what the relevant cameras are? The only way to find out this is through trial and error, i.e., by way of issuing the radius order, locating the first camera as an anchor point, and from there locating additional cameras according to the direction of travel observed in the same camera, one after the other, according to the possible travel routes.
It is of course possible to argue about the ranges, and it is possible that it would have been possible to suffice with ranges more than 5 kilometers, as was done, for example, in the two orders that were not submitted for our study. It is also possible to think of additional limitations, such as a defined definition in the dimension of time, but the main thing is that even if there is any defect in the judgment of the court that signed the order, and as has been clarified I do not believe that I should be required to do so, in practice, and this is the main thing, there was no defect in the conduct of the investigation team, and no person's rights were disproportionately violated. Certainly not the defendant's. Only relevant cameras, all of which were located outside the buildings, were collected and seized, and documented external-public areas, the disclosure of which does not entail, and would not entail, in practice, an infringement of the privacy of a person. In these circumstances, there is no justification for disqualifying the security camera footage, neither in a sweeping manner nor individually, and the defense's argument in these contexts is rejected. And now, the time is ripe for summaries, factual and evidentiary first, and legal at the end.