As to the extent of the necessity of the order for the continuation of the investigation and the scope of the rest of the prima facie evidence in the case, the more the order is not necessary for the continuation of the investigation and the filing of an indictment, the less the weight of the public interest in the use of the products of the illegal search in the framework of the investigation.
Finally, I am of the opinion that to the extent that the connection between the suspicions at the center of the investigation and the owner of the computer or smartphone is not significant, the justification for repeated violations of the privacy and privacy of others by means of the requested search warrant decreases.
- Examining these considerations in the framework of the hearing of a request for a search warrant on a computer, which was preceded by an illegal search, will allow for a proper balance between the public interests in law enforcement, the fight against criminality, and the protection of public safety, which advocate that the admissibility of evidence will not be examined according to the manner in which it was obtained; and the preservation of the fairness and purity of the criminal proceeding, as well as the protection of the rights of the defendant (see also the Issacharov case, at pp. 533-534).
This is in contrast to the approach whereby in any case a request for a search warrant is filed based on information illegally obtained by the investigating authorities - it must be rejected (see, for example, the Urich II case, in paragraph 21 of the judgment of the Vice-President (as he was then called) H. Meltzer). Such a decisive approach does not give sufficient weight to the public interest in investigating the truth, and is liable to leave the investigating authorities in a broken trough even in cases where the illegality was committed without intention, and even when a serious crime is at stake, while the illegality is not particularly serious. It is also difficult in my opinion to reconcile such a strict approach with the doctrine of the invalidity of the jurisprudential evidence established in the Issacharov ruling. It is not clear in my opinion why it is appropriate, according to this approach, precisely at the stage of the investigation to completely ignore the public interest in its advancement and to detract from the flexibility that the Issacharov rule sought to anchor.