In addition, in the circumstances of the case, the order was given for a proper purpose, the application for the order was filed shortly after the deceased was murdered in his home, and it is clear that it stemmed from the need to immediately locate the user of the vehicle used by the perpetrators of the offense. As the Supreme Court ruled in the case of the High Court of Justice 3809/08 mentioned above:
"It is difficult to beat law enforcement these days without monitoring media data - starting with locating criminals when the offenses were committed, following them up and making immediate assessments to prevent an offense."
In this context, we will also turn to what was stated in Criminal Appeal 5121/98 Issacharov v. Chief Military Prosecutor, IsrSC 61 (1), p. 461:
"The third set of considerations that may be relevant to deciding the question of the admissibility of evidence obtained unlawfully concerns the effect that the disqualification of the evidence will have on the work of doing justice in the broad sense. The main question that arises in this context is whether the social cost involved in disqualifying the evidence is greater than the possible benefit that will arise from it. The main parameters in this regard are the importance of the evidence to prove guilt, the nature of the offense attributed to the defendant and the degree of severity of it. When it comes to important and decisive evidence for the prosecution, and when the offenses attributed to the defendant are very serious, the invalidation of the evidence may unduly harm the conflicting interests of fighting crime and protecting public safety and the victims of the offense. In these circumstances, the invalidation of evidence will lead to the fact that the person guilty of committing serious offenses will not be held accountable for his actions - a result that in itself is liable to harm the administration of justice and the public's trust in the courts. For these reasons, the courts in England and Australia tend to take into account the degree of vitality of the evidence and the severity of the offense attributed to the defendant, when deciding the question of the admissibility of evidence obtained illegally."