Indeed, the issuance of a search warrant against a person who is privileged, such as a lawyer or a journalist, makes the task of making a decision complicated. However, the proper way to deal with the difficulty is similar to dealing with the difficulty of searching a telephone that can contain sensitive information about third parties or even about the suspect himself: building on the discretion of the investigating authority and the discretion of the court, while providing instructions that will reduce the possibility of infringement of the rights of third parties. Thus, alongside the possibilities available to the suspect or third parties after the search is carried out. And insofar as the reference is to professionals who are "third parties" and are not suspects, one may ask, why should a distinction be made between an interrogee who is not a suspect and who is also a professional as aforesaid, and any interrogee who is not a suspect? As may be recalled, according to the existing bill, in the latter context, the court has discretion to schedule a hearing in the presence of both parties, subject to various considerations, but there is no exclusivity for professionals who are subject to confidentiality.
Defect in the Authority's Conduct. This exception is, in fact, concerned with "intermediary" cases, since if there is clear information about the defect that occurred in the Authority's conduct, in any case it is not required to hold the hearing in the presence of both parties, and the court must decide whether to accept the application or reject it on the basis of the material before it. We are therefore dealing with a kind of individual case of the third exception - lack of information - to which I will refer below. In summary, if the difficulty is a lack of information, the court may reject the application as it was submitted and order that all the information in the possession of the investigating authority be set aside in the framework of an amended application. And if the authority does not possess additional information, and it is still a case that is not clear - then, as explained above, it is not an appropriate case for the court to begin examining various claims regarding the existence of illegality. After all, even if the court issues a search warrant, the interrogee will be entitled to raise the constitutional reservations during the stage of hearing the evidence. In other words, the appropriate place for such an inquiry is the main proceeding, where the court has better tools to decide the consequences of the illegal search, including conducting factual inquiries.