In his testimony in court, Policeman Aharon Cohen stated that he detained the defendant for the purpose of a preliminary examination, at which stage he had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was the suspect in the shooting incident, and to the best of his recollection, Officer Aviv placed the defendant in the status of suspect and warned him (p.  159 of the protégé).  Officer Cohen confirmed that when he opened the warehouse, he did not know whether property belonging to the defendant was there, but he suspected so and carried out the search of the warehouse due to suspicion that this crime had been committed up close (pp.  167-168 of the protégé).  According to him, the defendant stated that the key he had put in his pocket belonged to the warehouse, after he heard the door of the warehouse slamming and the defendant put something in his pocket, and therefore assumed that the defendant was in possession of the warehouse (p.  169 of the protégé).  According to him, during the search of the warehouse, police officers Aviv and Sardes were also present.

98. Policeman Emanuel Aviv He presented an action report he prepared on July 20, 2022, indicating that he arrived at the suspect's residential address after the DCO of the Ethiopian Community in Jaffa reported on the basis of a photo sent to him by Officer Cohen that the suspect resembled Ashbir Tarkin. Officer Aviv asked the suspect's mother who "Ayao" was, and she replied that it was her son.  The suspect's mother called the suspect and a phone rang in the staircase below.  Officer Aviv approached the suspect after officers Sardes and Cohen reported him that he was "Ayao", noticed that his image was identical to the person who appeared in the photo that was circulated following the shooting incident, and he was wearing orange shorts, a short black shirt and a casket hat.  After the door of the warehouse was opened, Policeman Aviv noticed a black electric bicycle standing right at the entrance to the warehouse, a black helmet with the inscription "AGV" Placed next to the bicycle on a pile of "Keter" chairs, a black bicycle bag on a chair that stood in front of the bicycle.  Officer Aviv asked the suspect to point to items that belonged to him inside the warehouse, and the suspect pointed to the bicycle, helmet and bag.  At this point, when Officer Aviv found that the items in question matched the description of the suspect's belongings when he fled the scene of the shooting, the suspicion that the suspect was connected to the shooting incident grew stronger, and he informed him of his arrest on suspicion of attempted murder, conspiracy to commit a crime, and possession of a knife.  Policeman Aviv noted that he detailed the suspect's rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to consult a lawyer.  It was decided to search the defendant's apartment, and the defendant was asked to organize two witnesses.  The defendant's sister and mother were present during the search (it was noted that the sister had gone at the same stage) (P/12).

In his testimony in court, Officer Aviv stated that as far as he was concerned, he did not search the building's warehouse, but only went in and looked, and after noticing the objects, he asked the defendant to point out those that belonged to him (p.  189 of the protégé).  Officer Aviv confirmed that the search of the warehouse was carried out without witnesses, because there was no real search, but rather they seized the exhibits from inside the warehouse and closed it (pp.  191, 198 of the protégé).  Officer Aviv stated that he informed the defendant that he was in custody on suspicion of conspiracy to commit a crime, attempted murder and possession of a knife, and that at that stage he did not inform the defendant about a shooting incident (pp.  193-195 of Prut).

99. Policeman Ziv Sardes He presented an action report he prepared on July 20, 2022, which shows that after locating the suspect's relevant apartment, on the second floor of the residential building, and during the conversation that Officer Aviv had with the suspect's mother, he heard metal door noises and noises from the building's warehouse on the ground floor. At the same time, the suspect's mother called him and then a phone rang from the warehouse area.  Policeman Ziv Sardes noted that he and Policeman Aharon Cohen, followed by Policeman Emanuel Aviv, went downstairs, where they met a man who matched the suspect's description, who replied that his name was Ashbir Tarkin, but that he was called "Yayo." After the warehouse was opened, electric bicycles, a helmet and a delivery bag were found in front of it, each of which answered with great accuracy the same items with which the suspect was seen in the videos and photos that were produced from the scene after the incident.  It was noted that at this stage, on the basis of the suspicion that the suspect was the person being photographed, Officer Cohen searched the suspect's body, during which a folding knife was seized, which was handed over by Officer Cohen to Officer Sardes.  In the report, Officer Sardes described the seizures from the warehouse as follows: Bicycles black electrics, cast wheels and not rivets, a black chair located in metal dots, on the bicycle battery there are light stickers, on the body of the bicycle there are stickers with yellow inscriptions; Black helmet with a sticker that says "AGV" white in the front and back; a black thermal shipping bag with light reflection strips on its straps and next to them, its inner part is silver; A folding knife with a black locking mechanism and a hanging clip.  It was noted that the bicycle, helmet and shipment bag found in the warehouse were handed over by him to the Special Patrol Unit team, while Officer Sardes and the Special Patrol Unit team were wearing gloves and giving instructions as to how to transfer the exhibits.  Officer Sardes stated that he had been asked to guard the warehouse and the exhibits until they were transferred to the forensic department, and at the same time Officers Aviv and Cohen went with the suspect to his apartment to search the place (P/8).  Two photographs of the exhibits seized in the warehouse were submitted (P/99).

In his testimony in court, Officer Sardes stated that they arrived at the defendant's residential address following information given to Officer Aviv, who showed him a video of the shooting incident and a video in which they saw the suspect under the building while removing his helmet.  According to him, the suspicion was strengthened after it was found that the defendant had responded to the description of the person filmed in the video carrying out the shooting, and later the bicycle, helmet and bag were also found (pp.  135-137 of the protégé).  Officer Sardes stated that he photographed the seized items found in the warehouse using his phone and passed the footage on to the ZIT-investigator Avi Daniel (pp.  142-144, 486 of the protégé).

100. Policeman Yaniv Oshri, who served as the deputy head of the Special Operations Unit, said in his testimony that he arrived at the defendant's home after his arrest (p. 245 of the protégé).  Officer Oshri stated that a search was conducted at the defendant's home in order to locate evidence that suspected him of committing a felony, and then a search was conducted in the warehouse and he received a report that the bicycle had been found, but they remained in the warehouse closed until the search of the defendant's apartment was completed, in order to prevent the evidence from being "contaminated" (pp.  249-247 of the protégé).  Policeman Oshri He reported that due to forensic findings on one of the seized items, apparently the helmet, another person was interrogated (p.  252 of Prut).  A memorandum was submitted that he had drawn up Policeman Oshri dated July 21, 2022, in which it was noted that a folding knife with a fixed blade was seized on the defendant's body (P/42); And yes, a series of photographs of the occupants - an electric bicycle, a helmet and a thermal delivery bag.  Policeman Oshri did not remember who took the photographs, but he combined the photographs into one document (P/43).
101. The testimonies of police officers Cohen, Aviv and Sardes, along with the detailed action reports they prepared and presented to the court, left a serious and reliable impression, without being hidden, and their versions were well integrated and supported each other. From the totality of the testimonies and evidence, it appears that the three policemen arrived at the defendant's apartment, at 8 Saharon Street, second floor, apartment 4, following the identification of the defendant by Officer Allalo, from the videos produced by security cameras, in at least one of which the defendant's naked face was clearly visible as a suspect in the shooting act.  During a conversation that Officer Aviv had with the defendant's mother, at the entrance to the apartment, she called the defendant.  At the very same time, traffic noise, a door opening and a telephone ringing were heard from the entrance floor of the building.  The three policemen went down to the entrance floor and met the defendant, who confirmed his name and nickname, and was wearing the clothes seen on the security camera installed near the door of the defendant's apartment; At 2:16 P.M., the suspect was seen descending the staircase, dressed in the following attire: a short black shirt, orange shorts, a black casket hat and black shoes (P/49, P/73).

Legality of searches

102. I have not yet commented on the legality of the various searches: an external search of the defendant's body; A search of the warehouse of the residential building and a search of the defendant's apartment will be reminded of the basic principles that the authority to conduct a search of a person's body, belongings, or premises is regulated by a number of provisions of the law. A search by a police officer (or a person authorized to do so) is carried out by virtue of his governmental powers and requires compliance with the standards set out in the provisions of administrative law and the laws of criminal procedure.  This regulation is intended to enable the police to properly fulfill their various roles in law enforcement and in apprehending criminals, and thus to promote the protection of personal security and public order in the country; At the same time, to delimit the powers of the police, the exercise of which by their very nature entails the violation of various human rights and individual freedoms.  In this way, the balance set by the legislature between the public interest in the effective and effective functioning of the police and the need to protect the human rights of the citizens with whom the police come into contact is expressed.
103. The main legislation regulating the search powers, of all kinds, are: Sections 23-31 to the PDP, which regulates the manner in which the search is conducted in the house or elsewhere; Article 28 to the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance [New Version], 5733-1973, which regulates searches for the purposes of drug detection; Article 71 to the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers - Arrests), 5756-1996, which regulates the detainment of vehicles for the purpose of search; Section 3 The Powers for the Protection of Public Safety Law, 5765-2005, which regulates, inter alia, the power to search without a warrant when there is a reasonable suspicion of carrying a weapon illegally or for the purpose of protecting public safety; The Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers - Body Search and Taking Means of Identification), 5756-1996, which regulates the manner in which "external" and "internal" searches are conducted in the human body; Section 5(5) The Police Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971, authorizes any police officer to search the tools and body of a person who has reasonable grounds to suspect that he is in possession or transferring stolen property or anything whose possession is illegal.
104. As noted, as a rule, every search must be carried out according to an order received by the court. However, sometimes there is an urgent need to conduct a search, lest the purpose of the search be thwarted, within the time required to apply to the court for an order.  Therefore, in order to fulfill the purpose of the search, the law allows a police officer, in certain circumstances, to conduct a search of a person's body, belongings or premises, even without a judge's order.  The authority to conduct a search of a person's body, belongings or premises without a judicial warrant is contingent on the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the person is in possession of any object whose possession is prohibited or that he is the object of a search by the police.  In the Rule Ben Haim It was held that the test of reasonable suspicion is essentially an objective test in which the court is required to assess the reasonableness of the judgment of the police officer who conducted the search in order to decide the question of the legality of the search.  This is not an exhaustive and unequivocal definition, and the application of this test is based on the individual circumstances of each case, the information that the police officer had at the time of conducting the search, and even on his experience and professional judgment.
105. A police officer may therefore base his suspicion on a variety of data and facts that have come to his attention directly, from direct observation of the incident, to the observation of one of his other senses (such as smelling of a drug); It is also possible that the policeman's suspicion will be based on the claims of a third party, meaning that the suspicions were not necessarily the result of facts that he witnessed with his own eyes or felt with his senses directly. The same applies to a report or request by another police officer, on the basis of which the police officer exercises his authority.  However, a police officer must act in a logical and cautious manner, and therefore suspicion that he is merely a guess - and which is not supported by facts, circumstances or reliable information - is not sufficient for this purpose (compare: High Court of Justice 465/75 Degani v.  Minister of PoliceIsrSC 30(1) 337, 350-351).
106. Thus, the "reasonableness" of the suspicion will be examined according to objective criteria, each case according to its circumstances and based on an indefinite list of parameters, such as: the question of the existence of information regarding the commission of an offense in the place (such as a house or a vehicle); the existence of information regarding the suspect himself who intends to commit an offense; suspicious behavior of the suspect; the time of attendance; The experience and professional judgment of a police officer and more.
107. In addition, as stated, in the absence of a source of legal authority to carry out the search, the consent of the person who is the object of the search can serve as an independent source of authority to carry out the search, and in this way to authorize a search of his body, utensils or home, provided that we are dealing with "informed consent" on the part of the person who is the subject of the search, to his right to refuse to carry out the search, and that the refusal will not be attributed to him (the ruling Ben-Haim).
108. From the first to the naïve, the first search in our case was carried out on the defendant, this is In the search for an external body and its tools. As policeman Aharon Cohen said when the defendant was identified by name, it was clarified that he was the suspect they were looking for on suspicion of attempted murder, as seen on the security cameras.  He also noted that he smelled strongly of alcohol.  Officer Cohen noted that he noticed that the pockets of the defendant's pants were significantly swollen, and in order to rule out a means of attack, in view of the seriousness of the offense in which the defendant was suspected, using a firearm, he decided to conduct an external search on the defendant's body.  Indeed, two Samsung phones were found on his body, a black knife, a bundle of keys and banknotes (which were left in the defendant's possession).

In the circumstances described, I am satisfied that the decision to search the body of the defendant, as described, without a judicial order, was necessary, correct and certainly reasonable.  The defendant was detained on suspicion of attempted murder using a firearm that had occurred a short time earlier, as observed by the security cameras.  Therefore, there is a reasonable suspicion that the defendant may be carrying a weapon on him illegally, or that he is about to use it illegally.  Therefore, the requirement of "the basis to assume" that the defendant was involved in the commission of a crime was fulfilled, and the circumstances described justified the search on his body.

109. The second search is Warehouse Search on the ground floor of the residential building. This search was carried out after the search of the defendant's body, during which no firearms were seized, but a bundle of keys was seized, among other things.  The defendant confirmed that these were the keys to the doors of the warehouse and his apartment.  To this it should be added that the policeman Aharon Cohen stated in his testimony that he heard the noise of an opening door and movement on the ground floor.  Afterwards, he went down to the ground floor and met the defendant, When his face was in front of the door of the warehouse.  The suspicion that based the search on the defendant's body and clothes also justified the search of the warehouse on a site without a judicial order, for the following reasons: the defendant's proximity to the warehouse and the fact that he was holding the entrance key to the warehouse door in his pocket, after the noise of opening the warehouse door a few seconds earlier was heard; This is not a private warehouse, but rather a warehouse used by all the residents of the residential building, so that it was not possible to lock the warehouse and wait for a judicial order, without the risk that another neighbor would enter the warehouse; Even after the warehouse was opened, it appears from the photographs that were presented and from the detailed testimonies that the seized items, which were suspected of being related to the defendant (electric bicycles, helmets and thermal bags) were visible for all to see, and a glance at the inside of the warehouse was enough to find them (as opposed to an intensive and thorough search).  It therefore turns out that we are dealing with a search in which the degree of violation of privacy involved was inherently low.

At the same time, it has not escaped my notice that this search was carried out without the presence of two witnesses who are not police officers, as required by law.  As a rule, in a search of a house or place, the presence of two witnesses is required, unless one of the exceptions prescribed by law is met.  Section 26(a) The PDP states as follows: