Caselaw

Serious Crimes Case (Tel Aviv) 14098-08-22 State of Israel v. Ashbir Tarkin - part 61

September 9, 2025
Print

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.

Previous part1...6061
62...102Next part