This practice, which in fact does not distinguish between search warrants in Hatzerim and search warrants for computers and smart mobile phones in particular, is also learned from the investigator's remarks in a hearing held in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrate's Court on the subject of another criminal hearing:
"Usually, in my experience, when I summon a suspect for interrogation, it is during a delay after a search of the house, so within the framework of the order, there is also penetration into computer material and phones, when the order refers to this" (p. 48 of the transcript of the hearing in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrate's Court on a search warrant / entry order 51787-10-19 [published in Nevo] of January 8,2020, lines 33-34).
Even in the search warrant given on Shimon's telephone (the applicant in an additional criminal hearing 4072/21; [published in Nevo] hereinafter also: additional criminal hearing Shimon), no conditions were included for the search to be carried out, and it was determined - without any reason - that the search would not be conducted in front of witnesses, but by a skilled investigator (on the obligation to explain why a search of a computer would be conducted without witnesses, see, for example, the summary of the Ombudsman's decision on judges "on the reasoning for searching the computer and computer materials without the presence of witnesses" (Decision No. 316/18/Shalom of July 11,2018)).
- In practice, the premise that there is no real difference between a hearing of an application for a search warrant in premises and a request for a search warrant on a computer, has to a large extent reversed the requirement to include in the search warrants computers conditions that will reduce the violation of privacy to a "dead letter". This approach is also found at the basis of positions expressed in the rulings of this Court, according to which, as a rule, a hearing on an application for a search warrant in premises should not be held in the presence of the parties, and therefore it cannot be appealed (see also the majority opinion in various motions, Criminal Shimon and the Urich II case, in paragraphs 4-5 of the judgment of Justice G. Kara).
However, as stated, I am of the opinion that this assumption is wrong, and so are the conclusions that derive from it.