Judge Alaa Masarwa rejected police request to search the devices of Jonathan Orich, Yossi Shalom and Israel Einhorn • Golan's lawyers intend to appeal the decision • The decision reads: "In such cases it is appropriate to encourage the state to apply to the court, share in the defects and ask him for warrants"

• Jonathan Orich and Ofer Golan // Photo: Yossi Zeliger, Coco

Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court Judge Alaa Masarwa on Sunday ruled that police will not be able to search the phones of Prime Minister Yonatan Orich, Yossi Shalom and Israel Einhorn. On the other hand, the judge approved the search warrant on Ofer Golan's phone.

Four requests for search warrants were filed on the phones of four suspected harassment offenders to State Shlomo Pilber in Case 4000. The applications allege that the suspects operated under a defined and organized scheme to harass Pilber about the versions he delivered during the investigation.

Judge Masarwa first ordered a hearing on the status of both parties. During the hearing, the defense objected to the claims on the grounds that they had been pricked through the suspects' mobile phones without receiving a judicial order and contrary to the law. It was also alleged that the preliminary illegal search constitutes a crucial consideration for the police duty, and has clearly tilted toward rejecting her requests.

Netanyahu's Advisor at the Entrance to the DIP: "This is a Political Inquiry to Isolate the Prime Minister" // Photo: Moshe Ben Simhon

Following the Magistrate's Court hearing, in which the order was approved, an appeal was filed to the district which was also rejected. The attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court where it was held that "the granting of the search warrant, without regard to the early search implications of the extent of the privacy violation caused to the interrogator as a result of the warrant, and the hearing of the defect that fell into the main proceeding cannot prevent the further violation of the interrogator's privacy before it has occurred."

The case was remanded to the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court, where Judge Masrava referred to the principle of law in the state's request for the issuance of a search warrant after performing an unlawful and unlawful search.

"A difficult question is whether an unlawful investigative action is blocking the possibility of the investigating unit approaching the court, in the same matter, in filing a judicial order," the judge wrote in his decision.

"Indeed, this request is suspicious of her as a request designed to whiten or legalize the creep. Moreover, such a request poses a considerable difficulty in the Court, as acceptance of the application may encourage illegal conduct by investigative bodies in the future.

"In addition, such requests will usually be brought before the court after an evidentiary basis for suspicion of 'defeating' the illegality can be found. Rejection of orders at this stage could result in a death blow to the investigation, and a serious injury to the public interest in clarifying the criminal incident. Justify an approach that does not consider it kind to make such requests. For such applications, the court faces two poor choices. "

The judge also wrote in his decision that, on the contrary, it is precisely in such cases that the state should be encouraged to apply to the court, to share in the defects and to ask him for orders, so that the further investigation will be conducted under close supervision of the court, possibly reducing further infringement of the rights of the suspects.

The judge added that the defect was left unchanged, and waiting for the main case, if any, was an undesirable move that should be avoided.

"Therefore, it was found that the court hearing the application for a search warrant has the best ability to prevent or reduce further violation of the privacy of the investigated person - and the consequences of the defect should be discussed already within the request for a search warrant," the judge noted.

PM Benjamin Netanyahu // Photo: Mark Israel Salem

The judge also referred to investigator Rinat Saban's cross-examination and wrote on the background to his decision: "The Saban Inspector answered most of the questions in a vexed manner, claiming that she did not remember things for confirmation and that she was unable to elaborate on her answers due to investigative and process needs to be clarified in the DIP. Clearly positive, and the burden of persuasion is on the shoulders of the applicant, I found to reject the applications in relation to the suspects, except in the case of Ofer Golan.

"In the case of Ofer Golan, and as described above, I found that the affiliation, even if it exists, is far off. In his case, and in light of the original justification I referred to extensively, there is no concern that the order sought in his case was intended to retrospectively conduct a search."

Justice Masrava concluded the decision, stating that "I have not decided to reject the orders for orders or to accept the request for an order in Ofer Golan's case to dismiss the issue of defects and the admissibility of the improvised search results, which I did not spare in condemning under my original decision. The illegality of early search or to legalize the contaminated evidence or even redirect future defense claims on every level. "

As for the order issued in relation to Ofer Golan's mobile, his lawyers intend to appeal the decision.

Lawyers Amit Haddad and Noa Milstein: "We welcome the decision of the court that accepted our position. After the Supreme Court ruled that serious, recurring flaws had fallen in the interrogation of Prime Minister Advisers, today the Magistrate's Court has ruled definitively that these violations have a price - rejecting the requests to issue orders. This is, in fact, the final nail that should lead to the closure of the investigation file against the prime minister's advisers. "