The panel of judges chaired by President Esther Hayut, which heard a petition from social activists, ruled that there was a fear of arbitrary use of authority while violating human rights.
The above: Police officers will not be able to apply for a ID card for no reason
Photography:
Yehoshua Yosef (Photographers have no connection to the article)
The Supreme Court decided to partially accept the "Tabaka" petition for justice and equality for Ethiopians filed against the procedure of presenting an identity card and the obligation to identify oneself to a police officer.
The procedure was implemented from March 2019 and as part of it a police officer on duty can not only ask a resident for an ID card without suspicion, but also be questioned and produce additional information through police databases.
The court ruled that the procedure was inconsistent with the limited authority conferred on the police by the Identity Card and Presentation of Law and there was a concern that the authority would be exercised arbitrarily in violation of human rights.
The decision was made by a majority opinion supported by Supreme Court President Esther Hayut and Vice President Hanan Meltzer, against Judge Alex Stein's dissenting opinion that the law does not require citizens to present an identity card to police officers at all.
Although by law every resident who has reached the age of 16 must always carry an identity card and present it to a senior police officer, head of a local authority, police officer or soldier in the line of duty, but the court insisted that in order to avoid labeling people as suspects for no reason, In this authority only when a specific need arises.
The court also rejected the police's claim that section 2 of the ID card law gives a police officer "additional policing powers" beyond the very requirement to identify himself using an ID card, including questioning powers, checking details at the terminal, telephone inquiries with the hotline and so on.
The judges ruled that these actions lead to a significant violation of human rights, including freedom of movement, human dignity and the right to privacy, and therefore explicit authorization is required for their implementation in law.
The judges emphasized that the requirement to identify oneself by presenting an identity card is based on the need to find out a person's identity, and cannot be seen as a "tool" for conducting a "fishing trip" in relation to a person whose behavior does not raise reasonable suspicion of committing an offense.
The court ordered that if a new compliant procedure is not formulated within 90 days that includes detailed criteria and clear criteria for exercising the said policing powers, the police will not be able to continue using the existing procedure.
Judge Stein was even more extreme than this and held that the petitions should be accepted in full and provided that the law does not allow a police officer to require to see an identity card at all from a citizen.
As a result, Justice Stein held that a police officer may not require a citizen to present him with an identity card unless that police officer has the authority to demand its presentation by virtue of another law, such as the power of detention set forth in the Detention Law.
