The Public Defender's Office filed a motion to quash the State Attorney's directive and the temporary order of the Police Investigations Division based on it, which allows a search of computer material with the consent of the person who owns it and without a judicial order.
The Supreme Court accepted the petition and found that the police lacks the authority to conduct a consented search of computer material in the absence of a judicial order. Israeli law states that penetration into computer material, as well as the production of output during the operation, is deemed a search and will be carried out by a person in a position qualified to carry out the operations. This search will be conducted pursuant to a judge's order that explicitly states the permission to penetrate the computer material or produce output, and specifies the purposes and conditions of the search, which will be determined so that a person's privacy is not violated beyond what is necessary. Here, the State Attorney's directive allowed a search of computer materials, even if no judicial order was issued to access the computer material, based on the consent of the person being investigated, which may also authorize the use of extremely draconian authority by the police, even without express authorization, in the interest of expediting the investigation. The Supreme Court ordered the cancellation of the sections in the procedure that permit a search of computer material based on the consent of the person being investigated, which will enter into force after a transitional period and which will allow sufficient time for the issue to be regulated in legislation.