The police returned the cell phone that was taken from him through a legal order to the subject, and after a threat that if he did not delete from the device a video used as evidence in the case, his wife, who is nine months pregnant, would not be able to contact him.
Israel Hayom published for the first time that the young man, who went up to the Temple Mount on August 29, filmed two police officers arresting another person.
It is claimed that the detainee violated the rules of behavior in the mountain.
After that, the young man who took the video was summoned for questioning on suspicion of interfering with a police officer.
The video he took was supposed to be used as evidence, if indeed he disrupted the work of the police officers and filmed, as they claim, the arrest too close.
During the investigation, the investigator, Ibrahim Hadad, demanded that the young man delete the video from his cell phone.
The young man refused and Hadad threatened him.
In the recording that came to us, the researcher is heard admitting that he suggested that the police penetrate the device or take it away.
"His wife is pregnant and it would help him to have a cell phone. I want him to delete the video himself," said the researcher.
Lawyer Nati Rom demanded: "Give the interrogator his cell phone back", photo: Yossi Zeliger
Last Thursday, a hearing was held in court on the request of the defense attorney, Advocate Nati Rom, to return his cell phone to the interrogate. However, the investigator Hadad himself came to the hearing and informed the court that the police were giving up the device. Advocate Rom wondered at the hearing why the police were suddenly willing to return it to him the device, and the investigator replied: "I received a reply from the investigation officer that the device can be returned."
The researcher claimed that the subject would be able to receive the cell phone at the Merhav David station on Sunday.
The defense attorney, who demanded to receive it immediately, played to the judge, Amir Shaked, the recording in which the investigator was heard demanding to delete evidence while threatening, and the judge ordered the police to return the cell phone to the interrogate that same day.
The device was indeed returned to him.
We will clarify that the Police Department decided to close the case against the investigator, because in their opinion the matter is not criminal.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us