The first group of considerations deals with the nature and severity of the illegality or unfairness involved in obtaining the evidence. This set of considerations focuses on the improper conduct of the investigative authorities. In this context, consideration should be given, inter alia, of the following facts: the nature and severity of the illegality or unfairness involved in obtaining the evidence; whether improper means of interrogation were used deliberately and maliciously or in good faith; whether there are "extenuating circumstances" that have the power to reduce the severity of the illegality involved in obtaining the evidence; How easily could the evidence have been obtained lawfully and whether the evidence would have been discovered or obtained by law enforcement authorities, even if the improper interrogation methods were not used, which may reduce the intensity of the violation of the defendant's right to a fair trial, if the evidence is accepted at trial.
Usually, the admission of evidence obtained with technical, trivial or minor defects will not significantly impair the defendant's right to a fair trial, as opposed to a blatant violation of an explicit provision of the law intended to protect the suspect's right, or a serious violation of his central fundamental right; However, not every deviation from the rules of the interrogation and not every means used in the interrogation, even if it is not acceptable to the court, will lead to the invalidation of the evidence.
In this case, this is a clear violation of a provision of the law, which requires the presence of two witnesses who are not police officers. As is well known, a search of a person's home or premises constitutes an invasion of the individual's domain and a serious violation of his right to privacy and property. The requirement for the presence of witnesses during the search is not technical, but substantive, and its purpose is to mitigate the violation of these basic rights. In addition, the legislature's requirement for the presence of witnesses who are not police officers stems from the desire to create maximum reliability for the search carried out by the administrative authority. The witnesses are supposed to serve as objective and neutral parties, who have no interest in the results of the search, and thus confirm the truth of its content. They serve as a control tool for the conduct of the police force and prevent the subject of the search from raising allegations against the conduct of the police officers or the findings of the search. The presence of two witnesses who are not police officers provides an additional control tool to protect the integrity of the search and investigation process, and it can reduce future claims that objects were not actually found but were buried by the police in order to incriminate the occupant of the premises.