Attorney Amit Haddad, who represents Jonathan Orich and Ofer Golan, argued against the police: "Before they came to the inquiry they already knew they wanted the phones, why didn't they apply for a warrant?" • We would expect an incident accompanied by senior State Attorney's Office to look differently " The Bar Association: "Huge Danger to Losing Public Trust"

• PM Ofer Golan's Advisers Jonathan Orich // Photos: Coco, Yossi Seliger

This morning (Sunday) a High Court hearing was held by Prime Minister Netanyahu's advisers, Jonathan Orich and Ofer Golan, against police use of their mobile phones after they were confiscated as part of an investigation into the suspicion of harassment by the state in Case 4000 Shlomo Pilber.

The hearing is being followed by an appeal filed by Attorney Amit Haddad on the District Court's decision, which authorized the police to use the phones - despite the fact that the breach was made illegally and without a court order confirming it.

Ofer Golan filed complaint in the DIP (Archive) // Photo: Moshe Ben Simhon

"Why didn't they go to court and ask for an order"?

Attorney Amit Haddad said at the opening of the hearing: "The Honorable Court is asked to decide what happens when the police violate the provisions of the law, its internal procedures and the Supreme Court's ruling. Will the police, after unlawfully taking out materials, the court extend her hand and training again to obtain the materials that she had previously obtained illegally.

He added: "We see a top line talking about the rights of suspects, civilians, people and people. You cannot talk about rights if you do not cast operative content. Ofer Golan comes to the police without the telephone and then asks him where your phone is, and Ofer as usual "The phone tells him in the car and he is asked to bring the phone without telling him that he does not have to and no refusal will make no sense. Accompany him to the car and then grab him the phone."

"This is an event that takes place before an investigation begins. It teaches us that before he arrived they already knew they wanted the phone. So the question is why didn't they go to court and ask for an order?"

More on:

• Boycott of PM's advisers' phones: Police were caught with their pants down

• Netanyahu's Advisers Turn to Mandelblit: "Stop the Inquiry Due to Police Failures"

• Arden: "Use of Invasive Means - Only When Clearly Necessary"

"Borderless Search"

Following the hearing, Attorney Haddad added: "The police knew that there was no warrant and that if he did not agree, they could not impose it on his duty. Presumably, the police wanted to refuse refusal, so not only did it act against the lawmaker, but contrary to Ben-Haim's practice ... It was a search without boundaries. The Legislature has also determined that the search must be conducted and that this is not the case with the police. And when he wants to open the messages between him and the prime minister's son, he asks if he can refuse and then this search stops. "

He added: "We would expect that after such an event accompanied by the highest echelons of the State Attorney's Office will look different."

Later in the hearing, Judge Joseph Elron addressed a question to Uriech and Golan's attorney: "Is the application not a paralysis of the investigation?"

Adv. Amit Haddad: "We would expect an event accompanied by senior prosecutors to look differently" // Photo: Gideon Markovich

To this, Attorney Haddad replied: "There always comes a price that the state pays when discussing the rights of the accused or suspect. We told ourselves that we are willing to pay prices, provided that we uphold the rights of the guilty and the suspects. "He added:" When a person is released from detention for a fundamental right violation, then do we not injure the investigation? The answer is yes. Is this a price that we as a democratic society are willing to pay? The answer is also "

Israel Bar Association: "Police Work Replaced with Mobile Phoning"

The person who gave a backing claim to the counsel of Uriich and Golan was the Bar Association, which criticized the police work during the hearing. Attorney Adi Carmel, the bureau's attorney, said in the hearing: "We see a real duty to join in these matters ... This is a matter for everyone and through this specific case it was possible to engage in the rights we encounter on a daily basis ... a large part of the classic police work We knew until a few years ago, the mobile phones were being swept through. Any serious, serious investigation begins with a phone call. "

"There is a huge danger here in losing public confidence. Where a retrospective order is sought, what is the police doing that does not find evidence that strengthens the investigation? Will she then go for a warrant? Probably not." She added: "And if the phone was evidence in favor of the interrogator? These things happen every day at the police station. The significance of the order and its receipt in time is oversight of police work and processes, and so the bureau believes there is an opportunity and a real need here for the court to speak on these important issues that pertain to all citizen".

State Prosecutor: "Police Can Mistake"

Advocate Naomi Granot, who represents the state's criminal justice department, said later in the hearing: "I do not imagine that in other investigations no flaws have been made. I do not think that a person who does not go wrong and the Israeli police could be wrong."

The following referred to the question of whether the use of PM's mobile phones should be disqualified at this stage of the investigation: "The question of whether the order can be replaced by any agreement without considering a matter of conscious consent or not. The second question is disqualification of evidence at such an early stage. There is no room at all to discuss after two sets have set what they have set. There is one issue worth discussing here but not at this stage and not in this case "

Remember, cell phones of Prime Minister Advisers Jonathan Orich, Ofer Golan, Yossi Shalem and Israel Einhorn - were seized by the police after an investigation was launched against them on suspicion of harassment by State Solomon Pilver. It is suspected that they sent a car with speakers to Philber's residence, and shouted at him that he had become a state witness against the prime minister.

After the district court rejected their petition to prohibit the police from using their cell phones, about two weeks ago, Urich and Golan filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The appeal alleges that "since the police have done justice to them and infiltrated the applicants 'mobile phones without judicial order knowing that this is contrary to the law, the law of the case and its procedures, it is muted and prevented from coming to court to obtain an infiltration order for the applicants' mobile phones, which will in fact legalize The illegal penetration has long been made. "

The appeal also reads: "During the hearings it became clear that it was a practice and that the police, as a matter of routine, penetrated the mobile phones of interrogators without a judicial order (and without obtaining informed consent). This is a conduct that should not be allowed when dealing with any factor, easy and material when this conduct comes on its part. Of the body that trusts law enforcement and public eyes are expecting it to act in accordance with the law to protect citizens and their rights. "