The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

The police executed a search warrant incorrectly, the accused of drug trafficking is acquitted | Israel today

2023-01-02T09:16:22.481Z


Nightmares of the law authorities • A resident of Tel Aviv was arrested after a large amount of prohibited substances were found in his apartment for personal use •


"The police didn't bother to find out the relevant address in advance":

that's what Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court Judge Itai Harmlin ruled, when he acquitted the Tel Aviv resident accused of possessing drugs not for personal consumption.

He criticized the police after a search warrant was issued for an entire building, without them having any details about the identity of the person who keeps the drugs in his home.

"The search was conducted in his apartment only because the defendant was unlucky to return to his home precisely while the police officers were there. Therefore, it is clear that there was no other reason to search his apartment," wrote Judge Harmelin in his decision.

An indictment has been filed against the defendant alleging possession of drugs not for self-consumption.

This is because, according to the claim, he had the following drugs in his apartment: 10 ml of GBL, 0.3604 grams of ketamine, and 1.77 grams of cannabis.

The accused is acquitted even though drugs were found in his home in an amount exceeding the amount of self-consumption (for illustration), photo: AP.

times

The indictment is based on the findings of a search conducted in the defendant's apartment and partially on the defendant's admission during the police investigation of possessing the drugs for personal use.

According to the defense, the search of the defendant's apartment was conducted in violation of the law, and therefore its findings as well as the defendant's admission, which is evidence derived from these findings, must be dismissed.

The order itself was issued on the basis of intelligence related to drug trafficking.

The order referred to an unknown holder and it specified the name of the city, the name of the street and the number of the house on the street - these correspond to the address where the search was conducted.

The order did not specify an apartment number.

According to the reports, a man whose name is listed in the warrant and whose address is not mentioned and his partner, who lives at the address where the search was conducted, "deal in type G drugs mainly on weekends. They distribute the drugs at the partner's house. Tomorrow is their strong day. Thursday evening they will sell a lot of the quantity ".

Officer Tesfahon's action report indicates that the officer told the defendant that he had a "search warrant for his house." The officers searched and found drugs in the apartment. The officer detained the defendant on suspicion of drug possession and informed him of his right to remain silent. Only during the cross-examination of Officer Tesfahon It turned out that both from the action report and from his main testimony in the trial, the police officer omitted important information, namely that the defendant's apartment is not the only apartment in the building for which the search warrant was issued.

There are five apartments in the building and none of the tenants were at home at that time, so their apartments were not searched.

In his acquittal, Judge Harmlin noted that there is no doubt that the intelligence information that resulted in the search warrant was issued did not touch all five housing units at the address for which the search warrant was requested and in order for a search warrant to permit a search of several housing units located at one address, this must be explicitly stated in the warrant.

If the conditions are not met - the order does not meet the requirement of accuracy and specificity.

"It seems that in the case before me the police themselves did not bother to find out in advance whether there is one or more housing units at the relevant address. And this is the source of the problem in issuing a warrant that lacks specificity and precision. Either way, it is not possible to put up with a situation where in any case where there is any suspicion against a neighbor in a shared house "His identity is unknown, the police will be able to search all the tenants in the building without it being clear that the court has approved such a search," Judge Harmelin wrote in his decision.

"On the sidelines, I will point out that it is difficult to accept the argument of police officer Tespahon that the omission of the fact that the defendant's apartment in the relevant building was one of five apartments from his action report and his main testimony in the trial was an "omission".

This omission even led to the filing of an indictment without the plaintiff being even aware of this circumstance," he added.

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

Source: israelhayom

All news articles on 2023-01-02

You may like

Life/Entertain 2024-03-12T16:52:29.017Z
News/Politics 2024-03-27T15:14:55.650Z

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.