As to the necessity of the warrant, during the hearing, the interrogee may bring to the attention of the court facts that were not before him previously, which may raise doubt as to the necessity of the search warrant. This is whether he succeeds in showing that the suspicions against him are baseless; or whether he shows that there is no connection between the offense for which he is being interrogated and the information on the computer or smartphone. In the framework of this hearing, the interrogee may even ask the judge hearing his case to summon the police investigator and ask him questions regarding the necessity of the warrant (Kedmi, at p. 679). In certain situations, the interrogee may also indicate that the information on which the sought search warrant is based was obtained through a preliminary search that was conducted unlawfully. This, in my opinion, may, in my opinion, justify the rejection of the request for a search warrant. Naturally, it can be assumed that a claim regarding an illegal search that preceded the request for a search warrant will not be brought before the court unless the hearing of the application takes place in the presence of the parties.
With regard to the scope and conditions of the search warrant, the interrogee or suspect may bring to the attention of the court that even if there is room to conduct a search, the scope of the search warrant requested exceeds what is required, and may lead to unnecessary violation of the privacy and privacy of others. This is especially true in cases where the search warrant is not limited to a specific period of time or the use of search words relevant to suspicions, as was the case in the case at hand in the original search warrant requested by the state in the matter of an additional criminal hearing Shimon (on the difficulty of limiting the terms of a search warrant on a computer and a smartphone when the hearing of the request for a search warrant is done ex parte (see, for example, Zach Lerner, A Warrant to Hack: An Analysis of the Proposed Amendments to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 YALE J.L. & TECH 26,53 2016). And as I have noted in various criminal petitions, Shimon: