"The appellant noted before us that the police do not customarily ask the court for orders by virtue of section 43 that are directed at suspects during their interrogation. She did so in our case because of his special circumstances – the respondent's residence in his father's home, which he has immunity from search as a member of Knesset. Indeed, the way available to the authorities to trace documents in a person's possession is the method of a search carried out in accordance with the provisions of the law. This is also the shortest and most effective way to obtain documents in a person's possession, because the procedure for obtaining documents following the issuance of an order under section 43 is lengthy (due to the suspect's right to apply to the courts to revoke this order), during which the surprise effect inherent in the search is lost. A routine approach to a request by the investigative authorities to issue an order to produce documents under section 43 addressed to a suspect is also inappropriate, when it is clear from the circumstances that he is being asked to provide documents that could incriminate him. However, the issuance of such an order should not be ruled out in those cases in which the search is not possible or is ineffective for one reason or another" (ibid., at p. 767).
Indeed, routine use of the section is inappropriate. When there are ways for the police to obtain the documents it needs by its own means, there is no justification for the task or trouble of producing them to be imposed on the individual, whether he is a suspect or not. It should not be forgotten that the issuance of an order by virtue of section 43 entails an obligation to hand over objects that may steal, at times, effort and time, and may even involve financial expenses and investments and other resources. Such harm will be justified only in those cases in which the issuance of a warrant against that person, or a group of people to which he belongs, is the reasonable possibility of tracing the objects necessary for the purposes of investigation or trial. In exercising its discretion as to whether to issue the order for the production of documents, the court will also give weight to the degree of effort, the financial expense and the investment of time involved in fulfilling the order on the part of the person required to carry it out. Accordingly, there may be circumstances that are sufficient to justify the issuance of the order to hand over objects by virtue of section 43. There may also be importance to the degree of accessibility of the person against whom the order is requested to hand over an object, as opposed to the accessibility of others, such as a case in which a person – a witness or a suspect – has an advantage in controlling or accessing the object required for the purposes of the investigation. In principle, only when the demand directed at a person for the production of an object is reasonable in terms of his accessibility to it and in terms of the effort and expense required of him, will there be room to issue an order against him under section 43.