In practice, this was done only partially: only one investigator who was involved in the matter appeared in the Magistrate's Court, and she too refrained from answering some of the questions directed at her. This is in a manner that makes it difficult to learn about the reasons for the submission of the requested search warrant and the characteristics of the illegality involved in the preliminary searches. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the state did not meet the burden of showing that there is no causal connection between the preliminary searches that were carried out illegally and the search warrants requested - and therefore they should be rejected (see the case of Urich II, at paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Deputy President (as he was then called) H. Meltzer).
Supplementary Note
- At this stage, the opinion of my colleague Justice Y. Amit came to my attention.
At the beginning of his opinion, he enumerates "basic concepts" in criminal law, and then turns to "terrifying" scenarios of dramatic and extreme events. In order not to elaborate on my detailed opinion so far, I will briefly address these theoretical events, which in my view constitute a deviation from the main point, since there is nothing in common with our case.
From the outset, we were required to proceed before us because of the failure to comply with the provisions of the law as they are and their failure to internalize them as required (see the first Urich case), and not because of theoretical and extreme event scenarios, as presented in my colleague's opinion.
The description of these scenarios implies the justification for carrying out a search (the "hijacking" of a phone by a police officer) that embodies a message, if not an implicit acknowledgment, that the end justifies the means. This is a kind of compromise (the current restrictions imposed on conducting searches are loose), in exchange for the ostensible promise of a massive increase in the number of offenses that will be discovered. Therefore, why should we adhere to the rules and the law and the limitations of the investigators' authority? Why should we be required to make claims of violation of the rights of interrogees?; and why should we act to restrict the actions of the police and interrogators? After all, if we loosen the restraint, we will more easily discover criminality. This is at the expense of trampling on individual rights and violating privacy.