Justice A. Baron:
I attach my agreement to the comprehensive opinion of my colleague President A. Hayut, with its reasons, to the result. I will add a few words.
We are dealing with the investigation stage. And as I noted in my opinion in the Shimon case, the hearing of a request for a search of computer material - including a smartphone, as in the cases before us - must be held, as a rule, in the presence of an ex parte. As has been clarified, it is clear that this is a conscious choice of the legislature and its justification alongside it; this is also the practice that has always been practiced. Hence, and in the absence of any other provision in the law, it follows that there is no right of objection to a search warrant that has been given and has not yet been executed.
However, it is important to reiterate that when the court is required to decide on a request for a search warrant on a computer, it must take into account the right to privacy, which is a supreme basic right, and the severe harm to it that the search entails; when in contrast to this consideration, the public's interest is in exhausting the investigation and investigating the truth. The court has the responsibility to demand on its own initiative the proportionality of the order, to get into the thick of the matter, including to examine whether there is room to impose restrictions on the search. This is the case, inter alia, with regard to the period of time relevant to the search, as well as the limitation of the order to certain search words. The court must be vigilant and vigilant in order to ensure that the search, as much as possible, does not infringe on privacy beyond what is required. This is the case with regard to the decision itself whether to permit a search, as well as with regard to the scope of the search. The standards and considerations that the President laid out in a broad range should guide the court, including the investigating authorities, in all matters relating to the search process and all its stages. I will add the obvious, which is that the purity of the procedure and the provisions of the law must be taken care of in the actions of the investigating authorities. The known consequences of the deviation from this with regard to the admissibility of the evidence obtained, etc., should be discussed in the framework of the legal proceeding itself, and not at the stage of the investigation.