In particular, when the existence of a decision in an application for a search warrant on a computer is discovered at the time of a hearing on the application for delivery of seizure in an appeal against the decision in the matter, I do not see any difficulty in the applicant continuing to raise arguments against the legality of the order at that time (see and compare the case of Urich II, in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Vice-President (as he was then called) H. Meltzer).
This approach is consistent with the general principle enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Law and case law, which allows for the annulment of judicial decisions made ex parte in the framework of criminal proceedings (Miscellaneous Criminal Applications 3390/14 Inbal v. State of Israel, paragraphs 28-29 [published in Nevo] (June 11,2014); Criminal Appeal 2393/06 Hammoud v. State of Israel, para. 6 [published in Nevo] (November 20,2007)); It is also consistent with the rulings of this Court that allow for a review of previous decisions made in the framework of criminal proceedings in exceptional circumstances, despite the lack of explicit legal authorization to do so (Fishman; Miscellaneous Criminal Applications 5820/16 Shem Tov v. State of Israel - Israel Police, paragraphs 15-20 [published in Nevo] (August 25,2016); Criminal Appeal 5135/13 Jagerman v. State of Israel, paragraphs 19-20 [published in Nevo] (June 2,2014); Miscellaneous Criminal Applications 7323/98 State of Israel v. Rajwan, IsrSC 55(4) 126,138 (1999)).
Before Finishing
- The proceedings before us have exposed the fragility of interrogees' right to privacy. This is especially in light of the power disparity between them and the investigative authorities, and in light of the vast amount of information accumulated on their computers, and in the mobile and smart phones with which they sometimes appear for interrogation.
Admittedly, a person who is under interrogation is exposed to the intrusive questions of his interrogators, in a manner that in itself violates his right to privacy. However, a person's entry into the interrogation room does not completely deprive him of his right to privacy - and care must be taken not to detract from it beyond what is necessary (Criminal Appeal 6080/20 Anonymous v. State of Israel, paragraph 33 of the judgment [published in Nevo] (July 27,2021). See also in another context what was stated in additional civil hearing 1996/19 Kogan v. B.T.B. - Beer-Sheva Industrial Buildings Ltd., paragraph 5 of the judgment [published in Nevo] (January 11,2021)).