After listening to the testimonies of the police officers who were at the scene, met the defendant and carried out the search in question, I did not get the impression that the search was carried out maliciously, but at most out of negligence and lack of adherence to the procedures required by law. I was under the impression from the evidence that was brought before us that the seized exhibits would have been discovered even if the police had been careful and brought witnesses to the search, so that the said defect did not affect the obtaining of the evidence. As stated, the testimonies of the police, as well as the photographs from the place presented in court, indicate that this is a warehouse used by all the residents of the building, so that from the outset the violation of privacy in the search itself was limited and limited in relation to the defendant, since no search was conducted in a private or personal place, where objects could be found that could have violated his privacy. In addition, these exhibits were discovered for all to see when the door of the warehouse was opened, so that no "intrusive" or "thorough" search was required. Officer Aviv stated in his testimony that after the door of the warehouse was opened, he immediately saw the exhibits (electric bicycles, helmets and bags), as they appeared in the videos and photos that were distributed for their review earlier, and he even asked the defendant to point to objects that belonged to him inside the warehouse, and the defendant did point to the bicycle, the helmet and the bag. Policeman Cohen also noted that he opened the door of the warehouse and immediately noticed the bicycle and the helmet that matched the documented description. However, the defendant denied in his testimony that at the time of the search of the warehouse he was He pointed to the bicycle, the helmet and the bag as belonging to him, for the reason that he had not been asked about them at all (p. 580 of Prut). However, The defendant confirmed in his testimony that when the police arrested him, near the warehouse in his residential building, he was in possession of the keys to the warehouse and his apartment (pp. 577-578 of the protégé). The defendant confirmed that he returned home on a bicycle, which he stored in a warehouse. The defendant confirmed that he locked the warehouse and began to climb the stairs next to the warehouse, and the police used these keys to open the warehouse. There was no claim by the defense that the police had "planted" the bicycle or other objects in the warehouse. The defendant actually confirmed the policemen's version that he used the warehouse and put the bicycle he was riding in. The defendant was also present at the scene when the warehouse was opened and the exhibits were removed from it.
Related articles
Sometimes only the Lawyers Stands Between Life in Prison and Acquittal !
Criminal Law
An article on the reform of homicide offenses in Israel and the legal nuances between the various charges, as well as the need for legal counsel by expert criminal lawyers from the very first moment to prevent self-incrimination and devastating consequences. The article was written by Adv. Eduardo Maiselff of Afik & Co.
On the Rights of a Minor in a Police Interrogation
Criminal Law
One of the greatest nightmares for any parent is receiving a phone call informing them that their son or daughter has been detained at the police station – we all did foolish things as children, but when it happens to our kids, and certainly when they have reached a police interrogation, it is a […]
The Trial and Terror Balance: Risk Assessment Before Investors, Authorities, or a Random Hacker Come Knocking
Mergers and Acquisitions
Data Protection Officer (DPO) Services
High-Tech and Technology
An article on the importance of conducting a Legal-Accounting-Cyber risk assessment to understand a company's status before an event occurs that exposes these risks at a stage when it is too late to rectify them. The article was written by Doron Afik, Esq. of Afik & Co., CPA Eran Buchris, and Mr. Gabriel Marcus, a senior cyber architect
NIS1 NIS2 – NIS who?
High-Tech and Technology
Cryptocurrency, NFT and Web-3
European Law and Regulations
An article on European standardization concerning cybersecurity regulation and the importance of adhering to it to prevent personal liability for directors and corporate officers, even if the company is not European. The article was written by Adv. Adi Marcus from the Afik Law Firm and Mr. Gabriel Marcus, a senior cyber architect, who advises companies in the cyber sector and collaborates with Afik & Co. to conduct cyber risk assessments and handle related issues.