The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court ordered the police to compensate a citizen after he received a warning call from the police - for no reason.
This is a conversation that took place before the Pride Parade in Jerusalem, at a time when that citizen had no intention of demonstrating against the parade, and he had not done so in the past.
According to the ruling, the police will be forced to pay the citizen and his lawyer approximately 3,000 shekels. However, the Honenu, who are representing him, say that this is a ruling with a precedent-setting statement on the subject of civil rights.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
The incident occurred about a year and a half ago, just days before the Pride Parade in Jerusalem. According to the lawsuit, a police officer who called a citizen from a blocked number warned him not to break the law at the Pride Parade. During the conversation, the citizen tried to understand who was speaking, but the police officer did not identify himself as required by law and did not let him say a word despite all his attempts.
The lawsuit claims that during the conversation, the citizen heard the police officer continue to type on the computer, and felt as if he was being interrogated.
The lawsuit also included a transcript of the conversation as recorded on the citizen's phone. "This coming Thursday there is a Pride parade in Jerusalem... The police lawyer... I told you that within the framework of the police's authority to prevent offenses... I would like to come and update... I would like to update you about the Pride parades in Jerusalem that any statement or behavior that is against the law in this context is prohibited. I explained to you that this is a conversation and not an investigation and that he is not obligated to talk to me or answer my questions and if he decides not to cooperate... his position will not be used against him. The conversation took place of his own free will. What do you have to say on the subject?""
Later in the conversation, the citizen asks the policeman again: "Wait, you really...who is this talking to me? Are you trying to figure me out?""
When the policeman replies that he is a police officer, the citizen asks him again to say his name. "What does it matter? A policeman," he replies.
At this point, the policeman realizes that the citizen is recording him, and after he admits it to him, he says: "Great, I recorded it too, have a good day," and hangs up the call.
""The plaintiff was left stunned after the conversation," the citizen's lawyer, Attorney Menashe Yado, describes in the lawsuit.
He said, "He felt threatened and his civic security was shaken, fearing that the police were following him. He felt hurt by the fact that he was being labeled as a habitual offender. He felt that the police officer acted to intimidate him.".
It was also claimed that the conversation was made in violation of instructions and through negligence. In addition, Attorney Yaddo criticized the police for trying to intimidate the plaintiff and give him the feeling that he was being interrogated when he repeated the plaintiff's words at a typing pace and made typing noises.
During the trial, the parties agreed to a settlement. The parties also agreed that the compensation to the citizen would not be reduced by 250 shekels and would not exceed 7,500 shekels.
The ruling states that the judge listened to the recording and, after taking into account all of the parties' arguments, he accepts the claim in part and determines compensation in the amount of 1,500 shekels per citizen, as well as fees and additional expenses, an amount that amounts to approximately 3,000 shekels.
The citizen's lawyer, Attorney Menashe Yado of Mehonu, said in response: "The people of Israel are busy with other problems today, and in relation to functioning, the ruling serves to mark the boundaries of a ruling that violates the freedom of demonstration and civil liberties of Shlomi Amoni Yisrael.""
