Tel Aviv / PNN /
The Israeli Supreme Court ruled on Sunday that police do not have the authority to search suspects’ mobile phones or computers without a judicial warrant, even if the owner consents. The decision will take effect in 18 months, giving the Knesset time to enact legislation regulating the matter.
The ruling follows a petition filed by the Public Defense challenging police and prosecution practices that allowed such searches. The defense argued that these procedures violated criminal procedure law and constituted a “serious infringement on privacy,” both for suspects and for individuals they communicate with.
The judges emphasized that any such search “requires explicit authorization from the legislature.” Justice Noam Solberg noted that the investigation itself, even without coercive measures, “affects the suspect’s freedom, dignity, and privacy,” adding: “In a state of law, such a search cannot be conducted without clear legal authorization.”
The court added that requiring a judicial warrant is not a mere technicality but “an essential condition to ensure that the reason for the search is valid and that its scope does not exceed what is necessary.” Judicial oversight, even in a one-sided session, acts as a deterrent against investigative overreach.
The court also highlighted the “power gap between citizens and law enforcement,” which affects a suspect’s ability to give free and genuine consent to a search. Chief Justice Isaac Amit emphasized that smartphones have become “a person’s closest companion,” containing extensive personal and life data, making any intrusion a profound violation of privacy.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Amit wrote that “the significant potential harm to privacy, whether to the suspect or third parties, requires a clear legal provision permitting the search, even when the suspect consents.”
Public defense lawyers welcomed the ruling, calling it “an important and historic decision that strengthens suspects’ fundamental right to privacy.” They stressed that the decision sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies that “the end does not justify the means” and that only the legislature can grant police powers that affect fundamental rights.
