Conclusion
- The proceedings before us relate to two of the tens of thousands of such proceedings submitted annually as part of criminal investigations, and they concern requests for a search warrant that the investigating authorities request to carry out on computers, and in particular on smartphones. The impact of these proceedings on interrogees as well as on third parties that have nothing to do with the investigation is enormous. Indeed, conducting a search of computer material is a significant tool in the hands of the investigative authorities, and it is possible to promote the public interest in fighting crime and to expedite and streamline investigations - and these are goals whose importance cannot be overstated. But we must not forget that behind every search of a computer, and especially a smartphone, stands a person whose entire personal, business, family, and sometimes the most intimate information about him may be exposed to foreign eyes. This is, therefore, a highly invasive investigative action, which must be carried out with the utmost attention to the far-reaching consequences it carries, and before it is possible to carry it out, the investigating authorities and the courts are obligated to consider whether this action is indeed required and how it is possible to minimize the harm that will be caused as a result.
- Thus far we have said what can be said on the basis of the existing law. However, in view of the importance and complexity of the issues involved in searching for computer material, it is appropriate to reiterate the need for a comprehensive regulation of these aspects by the legislature - and it would be better to do so an hour earlier. This Court already discussed more than a decade ago in the Heinz case the need for a comprehensive and comprehensive regulation of this field, and this is true even more so today, against the background of the technological changes that allow each of us to concentrate more and more dimensions of our lives in the digital space.
- In summary, until the legislature takes action to regulate all the relevant issues on this issue, I would suggest to my colleagues that the hearing of requests for a search of computer material be held ex parte, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraphs 66-77 above, and that the court has the authority to hold a hearing in the presence of the parties in exceptional cases; that no right of appeal will be given to the court's decision in the application; and that in cases where it is known that an illegal search was carried out on a computer prior to which a search warrant was requested, the said defect will be a consideration in the framework of deciding on the application for a search warrant on that computer, which must be balanced with all the considerations relating to the application.
With regard to the individual case of Shimon and the applicants in the further hearing of Urich, I would suggest to my colleagues to retain the operative results that were decided in the Shimon case and in the Urich II case, as detailed in paragraphs 123-129 above.