As I have also emphasized in various criminal motions, Shimon:
"Intrusion into a person's computer or smart mobile phone is therefore liable to expose the intricacies of his personality and the details of his life that are kept confidential and are not supposed to be accessible to other people, and thereby severely violate his constitutional right to privacy, which is enshrined in section 7 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty... Many times, this violation of a person's privacy is ten times more severe than the harm involved in a search of his home. While a search of a person's home is limited in time and space, a search of his computer and his smartphone may reveal almost infinite information regarding his actions and thoughts over a long period of time. The information is stored and accumulated on his computer unwittingly, and even after deleting this or that piece of information, it may, in some cases, be available and accessible as part of the search. Moreover, the search of the computer and the telephone goes beyond the violation of the personal right to privacy of its owner or holder, and usually also involves a significant violation of the privacy of third parties" (ibid., at paragraph 25 of my opinion; see also the case of Urich I, at paragraph 19, and the references appearing therein).
Hence the concern of a severe and significant violation of privacy that may be caused as a result of a search of computers, and of a smart mobile phone in particular; Hence the significant effectiveness that a search of these devices may have in the framework of a police investigation. Access to an interrogee's mobile phone may lead to a significant breakthrough in the investigation and a significant shortening of the proceedings. Sometimes, it is possible to locate traces of his actions on a suspect's mobile phone, linking him to an offense - or alternatively, information that indicates his innocence.
The great value that can be derived from the information found in the interrogee's mobile phone poses a real temptation for police investigators in the interrogation room and at the scene of an incident to "reach out" the device and peruse its contents, since questioning the interrogee on the basis of suspicious correspondence may lead to a quick and efficient clarification of the suspicions (see, for example, the sequence of events in a criminal case (Beer Sheva District) 65130-02-18 State of Israel v. Anonymous, paragraphs 26-28 [published in Nevo] (June 20,2019), which was recently heard before us in the appeal in criminal appeal 240/21 [published in Nevo] on July 14,2021, and thus I was even exposed to the story of the incident).