A Tel Aviv police officer has filed a NIS 300,000 defamation lawsuit against three officers serving with him, claiming that they put baseless documents in his personal file in order to blacken his face and prevent him from being promoted in the future.
The plaintiff, who has served in the Israel Police for about 12 years, has in recent years served as deputy commander of a patrol unit.
He was in the process of promoting a counter-commander, a date for taking an officers' course in accordance with the summary of an interview in 2018, when he also received an exceptional score, which is considered the highest score in the Israel Police.
In 2019, the score returned exceptionally in the periodic assessment, and in the quality index received the highest score in its unit - 120.
About a year ago, while working a night shift as the deputy commander of a patrol unit, the policeman handled a patrol incident, in which he was instructed by a Torah officer to break into the apartment for fear of human life.
Before carrying out the instruction, the policeman, who was charged by the duty officer, tried to dissuade her from carrying out the burglary of the apartment.
The police officer was left with the choice of refusing an order or carrying out the instruction.
After breaking into the apartment, it became clear that it was empty and that there was no living soul in it.
At the end of the shift, when the defendant arrived at the morning shift, it was not acceptable for her to break into the apartment, and instead of confronting the duty officer who gave the order, she decided to blatantly reprimand the police officer for his malfunction.
"The policeman chose to carry out the order, since it is not a manifestly illegal order that can be refused. "Commanders, commanders, and police officers in the area who were nearby, and all this, due to the execution of an order of a Torah officer," the lawsuit states.
"The defendant, in bad faith and in an unacceptable manner, began to spread the word about the burglary of the apartment 'in vain', without conducting an orderly investigation and summoning the officer on duty for investigation, so that lessons could be learned and learned for future events."
A police car on the Tel Aviv promenade (those photographed have nothing to do with the news), Photo: Yehoshua Yosef
The policeman claimed that after the incident, a report was included in his personal file about his conduct in events that he claimed did not occur at all, and that these were defamations and words of swallowing. "The material harm to the police officer was carried out by the defendant in bad faith, in an unacceptable way and in a way that is not at all similar to the values of the Israel Police. In general, there were some, "the lawsuit states.
After the incident, the direct commander of the police officer was asked to inform him by telephone that he was being fired, as instructed by the defendant. "The question arises as to whether this is her way and whether these are the values of the police. Was there not and was not a place to conduct a written interview? Was it not appropriate to summon the police officer for an interview before dismissing him from office?" The lawsuit said. "The policeman informed the officer that due to her abusive behavior towards him he was filing a lawsuit against her, and since then she has embarked on a defamation campaign and harming his reputation. For this campaign she harnessed two more officers, when for her all means were kosher.
The Admissibility Commissioner noted in his decision that it is not possible to put in the police officer's personal file a record or internal record of incidents that were handled shortly after they occurred, in accordance with the command's decision, in an undocumented personal conversation.
"We believe that the timing of the entry of these memos into your personal file, after announcing that you intend to file an admission, is also problematic ... We believe that the decision to document events in which you were involved as specified in these memos "These events in real time and without being updated on their inclusion in the personal file are also not normal," the commissioner wrote in response to the receipt.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us