A request was filed to back up and download video files from cameras at 15 Sumkan Street, Apartment 12, which was made by Policeman Daniel on July 20, 2022 (P/51), in which it was stated that the time of the incident was 1:20 p.m. and that it was requested to download material between 12:30 and 1:40 p.m. Officer Daniel noted that he produced the digital evidence and burned the files onto a CD without any modification or editing.
A request was filed for a combined order - search of the place and penetration of computer material, conducted by Policeman Yoni Abitbol on July 20, 2022 at 17:30, in which an order was requested for penetration and examination of any computer material found during the search at the following addresses: 6 Saharon St., Tel Aviv, and 15 Sumkan St., Apartment 12 in Tel Aviv. On July 21, 2022, at the end of a hearing in the presence of a police representative, the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court granted a seizure and search warrant for DVR cameras In the requested addresses (as well as receipt of documents from Wolfson Hospital) (P/59, p. 292 of Prut).
In his testimony in court, Officer Daniel was asked how he transferred the camera footage from 15 Sumkan Street to Officer Oshri on July 20, 2022, while the order was given on July 21, 2021, and he replied that he first received the landlord's verbal consent, copied the materials on a USB flash drive due to fear that they would be deleted, and when he asked the owner to sign the consent form, he refused out of fear of being involved. When he handed over the materials to the Deputy Special Operations Officer, Policeman Oshri informed him that in order to view the materials and pass them on to the investigators, it was necessary to obtain an order (pp. 282-283 of the protégé). Policeman Daniel said that he copied the camera footage after introducing himself to the owner of the place, and obtained his consent. The owner of the place led him to the device and if there was a password he also gave it to him. According to him, the owner of the place was afraid to give his details because he did not want to be involved (pp. 284-286 of Prut). According to Officer Daniel, he did not seize the camera because it was a "very hostile area" and that he should not stop the work of the security camera from continuing to document the area (p. 287 of the protégé).