Court rejects police request for access to phones of arrested anti-government activists
Judge says no grounds for far-reaching measure against protesters nabbed on Saturday night; court also rebukes police for detaining one protester overnight in prison without cause
By Jeremy Sharon
29 December 2024
Police clash with demonstrators during a protest calling for the release of Israeli hostages being held in the Gaza Strip, in Jerusalem, December 28, 2024.
Police clash with demonstrators during a protest calling for the release of Israeli hostages held in the Gaza Strip, in Jerusalem, December 28, 2024.
Judge says no grounds for far-reaching measure against protesters nabbed on Saturday night; court also rebukes police for detaining one protester overnight in prison without cause
By Jeremy Sharon
29 December 2024
TIMES OF ISRAEL (TOI)
Police clash with demonstrators during a protest calling for the release of Israeli hostages held in the Gaza Strip, in Jerusalem, December 28, 2024.
Police clash with demonstrators during a protest calling for the release of Israeli hostages held in the Gaza Strip, in Jerusalem, December 28, 2024.
(Chaim Goldberg/ Flash90)
The Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court on Sunday rejected a police request to obtain access to the phones of several anti-government demonstrators who were arrested on Saturday night, saying that the crime of which they are suspected, disturbing the public order, does not justify such measures.
The activists’ attorney had strongly opposed the intrusive action, insisting it bore no connection to the protesters’ alleged violation and warning that it would open the door to further abuse of such powers by the police.
The judge also rejected the police’s request to bar the activists from participating in protests outside the homes of public figures and denied a request by the police for a restraining order against them.
In a further setback for the police, the same judge rebuked the force for holding one of the protester overnight in a women’s prison in Ramle, without justification, in violation of police procedure.
The woman was arrested for disturbing the public order and the unlawful use of fire or flammable substance for using what the police said was a smoke grenade, but what the judge determined to be a legal smoke candle.
The judge rejected the police’s claims that the woman was dangerous and said she should not have been detained overnight, but rather released on restricted conditions.
The Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court on Sunday rejected a police request to obtain access to the phones of several anti-government demonstrators who were arrested on Saturday night, saying that the crime of which they are suspected, disturbing the public order, does not justify such measures.
The activists’ attorney had strongly opposed the intrusive action, insisting it bore no connection to the protesters’ alleged violation and warning that it would open the door to further abuse of such powers by the police.
The judge also rejected the police’s request to bar the activists from participating in protests outside the homes of public figures and denied a request by the police for a restraining order against them.
In a further setback for the police, the same judge rebuked the force for holding one of the protester overnight in a women’s prison in Ramle, without justification, in violation of police procedure.
The woman was arrested for disturbing the public order and the unlawful use of fire or flammable substance for using what the police said was a smoke grenade, but what the judge determined to be a legal smoke candle.
The judge rejected the police’s claims that the woman was dangerous and said she should not have been detained overnight, but rather released on restricted conditions.
Police clash with demonstrators during a protest calling for the release of Israeli hostages being held in the Gaza Strip, in Jerusalem, December 28, 2024.
(Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)
The police arrested the five activists on Saturday following demonstrations held outside the Prime Minister’s Residence in Jerusalem, and in Kikar Safra outside City Hall, where they were calling for a deal for the release of the hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.
In the arrest of the activists from the Prime Minister’s Residence protest, police officers in a patrol car initially detained and questioned the protesters, just after they left the demonstration in their vehicle, but then sent them on their way.
Several minutes later, however, the same patrol car pulled them over again, officers searched the car for an effigy that had been used at the protest, and although they did not find it or anything else incriminating, arrested the four activists.
While the four were subsequently released, the police insisted on keeping their phones.
The police’s justification for the request to obtain access to the phones was to check whether there had been “illegal organization ahead of the demonstration.”
In reply to a question from Judge Chavi Toker, the police representative acknowledged in court that the only illegal activity at the demonstration allegedly committed by the activists was “disturbing public order” and the unlawful use of a megaphone.
Attorney Yoni Nussbaum, who represented the activists, warned that if the court acceded to the police request, “Tomorrow morning, they’ll take everyone’s phone from them.”
He also objected to the strict conditions for release set by the police, including a restraining order from being present in Jerusalem for 15 days and a ban on participating in a protest against a public figure for 15 days.
Toker said that the allegations against the protesters did not justify the police request to gain access to their phones, and rejected the measure.
She also rejected the police’s request for a ban on the suspects’ participation in protests against public figures.
The police arrested the five activists on Saturday following demonstrations held outside the Prime Minister’s Residence in Jerusalem, and in Kikar Safra outside City Hall, where they were calling for a deal for the release of the hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.
In the arrest of the activists from the Prime Minister’s Residence protest, police officers in a patrol car initially detained and questioned the protesters, just after they left the demonstration in their vehicle, but then sent them on their way.
Several minutes later, however, the same patrol car pulled them over again, officers searched the car for an effigy that had been used at the protest, and although they did not find it or anything else incriminating, arrested the four activists.
While the four were subsequently released, the police insisted on keeping their phones.
The police’s justification for the request to obtain access to the phones was to check whether there had been “illegal organization ahead of the demonstration.”
In reply to a question from Judge Chavi Toker, the police representative acknowledged in court that the only illegal activity at the demonstration allegedly committed by the activists was “disturbing public order” and the unlawful use of a megaphone.
Attorney Yoni Nussbaum, who represented the activists, warned that if the court acceded to the police request, “Tomorrow morning, they’ll take everyone’s phone from them.”
He also objected to the strict conditions for release set by the police, including a restraining order from being present in Jerusalem for 15 days and a ban on participating in a protest against a public figure for 15 days.
Toker said that the allegations against the protesters did not justify the police request to gain access to their phones, and rejected the measure.
She also rejected the police’s request for a ban on the suspects’ participation in protests against public figures.
Police clash with demonstrators during a protest calling for the release of Israeli hostages held in the Gaza Strip, in Jerusalem, December 28, 2024.
(Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)
In the hearing for the fifth woman arrested, for the use of the smoke candle at the demonstration in Kikar Safra, the police representative conceded that the smoke device the woman used was not dangerous, but accused her of having thrown it during the protest.
The woman was arrested on charges of the unlawful use of fire or a flammable substance, and for disturbing the public order.
Nussbaum, who represented this protester as well, insisted that the video footage the police representative showed the court did not show her throwing the object, and said that it was a completely legal smoke device available for purchase in regular shops for around NIS 50.
Nussbaum also pointed out that when he got to the police station at 12:30 a.m., the woman was ready to admit to the charges, and that there was, therefore, no need to detain her overnight in prison.
“I cannot understand why she was [held] overnight in Neve Tirtza [women’s prison]. Why?” demanded the lawyer.
Toker appeared to side with Nussbaum, saying that in light of the fact that the woman was not dangerous, “the [police] officer has no authority to detain [her], even until the detainee is brought before the court.”
She added that the proper procedure was to establish restricted release conditions at the police station, not while the suspect is in prison.
In the hearing for the fifth woman arrested, for the use of the smoke candle at the demonstration in Kikar Safra, the police representative conceded that the smoke device the woman used was not dangerous, but accused her of having thrown it during the protest.
The woman was arrested on charges of the unlawful use of fire or a flammable substance, and for disturbing the public order.
Nussbaum, who represented this protester as well, insisted that the video footage the police representative showed the court did not show her throwing the object, and said that it was a completely legal smoke device available for purchase in regular shops for around NIS 50.
Nussbaum also pointed out that when he got to the police station at 12:30 a.m., the woman was ready to admit to the charges, and that there was, therefore, no need to detain her overnight in prison.
“I cannot understand why she was [held] overnight in Neve Tirtza [women’s prison]. Why?” demanded the lawyer.
Toker appeared to side with Nussbaum, saying that in light of the fact that the woman was not dangerous, “the [police] officer has no authority to detain [her], even until the detainee is brought before the court.”
She added that the proper procedure was to establish restricted release conditions at the police station, not while the suspect is in prison.
No comments:
Post a Comment