In addition, even within the framework of this exception, the concerns that led to the creation of the rule of an ex parte hearing arise in the first place, such as harm to the effectiveness of the investigation, and the circumstances of the Urich case will prove. This is the point at which the general reservation about the creation of exceptions is combined with the reservation about the specific exception of a defect in the conduct of the authority. And even if I were to acknowledge the existence of exceptions - and this, as stated, is not my position - let us not forget that in any event, the legal rule must not thwart the search or disrupt the investigation proceedings. This is a "super-consideration". A hearing should not be held in the presence of both parties if it is liable to harm the investigation. Even my colleague, Justice Y. Elron, who is of the opinion that, as a rule, a hearing should be held in the presence of both parties - agrees that when there is a concern that the search and investigation will be thwarted or disrupted, the hearing should be held ex parte.
A request based on partial or inaccurate information. I will admit that this exception is the most difficult in my opinion. It opens an opening that is liable to expand and expand. While the first two exceptions are relatively focused and are not relevant to each case, the current exception may encompass many cases. Any request for a search warrant can be based on partial information, in the opinion of the court. In addition to the possible risk, I do not believe that there is much benefit in holding a hearing in a case where the information is missing. If the request is partial or inaccurate, the court must decide whether the infrastructure that was laid meets the requirements of the law. If this is not the case, it is possible to hold a discussion during the hearing in the presence of the investigating authority. It is possible to determine that the request as it was submitted is partial and incomplete, and a new request can be submitted. As I noted above, it is on this level that one of the most important contributions of the opinion of my colleague the President is found. It is even possible to reject an application that does not meet the requirements of the law.