A viewing report was submitted by Policeman Yogev Cohen on July 25, 2022 (P/38).
It was therefore found that the intrusion into the cameras at the soup kitchen at 7 Halamit Street in Bat Yam was carried out without a judicial order and without informed consent. The words of Mr. Shinborn, a veteran volunteer at the site and the person in charge of his absence, clearly illustrate the disparity in power between the citizen and the police in such circumstances, and therefore it is of the utmost importance that the police ensure that the person who gave the search warrant is aware that he has the right to refuse and that this is not considered his obligation.
- As for the videos From cameras installed by the Tel Aviv Municipality In his testimony, Policeman Daniel stated in his testimony that he had not been asked for an order from the court, because he said that there was an agreement between the municipality and the Israel Police to receive the filmed material. Officer Daniel confirmed in his testimony that he did not have such an agreement, and at that time the plaintiff noted that this agreement was not part of the investigation materials (p. 290 of the protégé). Officer Daniel referred to a "request for photographic material from the Municipal Security Forces", which was filled out by Policeman Yaniv Oshri on July 20, 2022, in which he requested documentation of footage from the cameras of the Municipal Security Guards (Technology Observation Center) from the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality between 12:30-13:30, and clarified: "I answer with confidence, with the Tel Aviv Municipality, that the municipality has some kind of agreement that we are coming and they are not demanding an order, they only demand this form, signed by the deputy security officer as you can see here, and the person who is doing the backing is me. She says not a municipality person."
00 A viewing report was submitted by Policewoman Nofar Yahya on July 24, 2022 (P/72).
0
As stated, the aforementioned agreement between the municipality and the police was not presented to the court and no testimony was brought directly related to this agreement. Section 32(b) The PDP explicitly instructs us that no computer or anything that embodies computer material will be seized, if it is in the use of an institution, such as a local authority, except in accordance with a court order.