Wisdom? Stupidity: As part of a hearing on the confiscation of a phone from a suspect being questioned at Lahav 433, the suspect's defense attorney demanded that the police release his client's device, claiming that his store was robbed, and he has no access to its security system without the phone.
Purchasing tickets, directions, map of the venues: What you need to know about Lag BaOmer in Meron
Initially, the police agreed to return the device to him - but later backed down.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
According to a report by Netael Bandel on Ynet, the suspect's defense attorneys filed a request with the Hadera Magistrate's Court to release the cell phone. The police, in response, filed a statement of claims, in which they reasoned why the court should reject the request.
The statement of claims included two "sections of law" that supported the police's claims.
However, when the hearing opened before the Hadera Magistrate's Court judge, Judge Ehud Kaplan, the defense attorney claimed: "I suspect that the police response was taken from a GPT chat. The cited sections of the law do not exist.".
After the defense attorney's revelation, the police representative admitted: "My friend is right. We take it back. What was quoted is incorrect. Whoever wrote it did so in good faith, by mistake. We admit that there was a mistake.".
Judge Kaplan did not spare criticism of the police in his decision. "If I thought I had seen everything in the 30 years I have been on the bench, I was probably wrong," he wrote.
He emphasized that the police had disgraced themselves: "One of those 'laws' has never even existed in anyone's imagination until now, because searching for its words on the Internet using search engines like Google does not yield any matching results.".
Ultimately, the judge ruled that the person being questioned would hand over an empty phone to the police, and the police would transfer the contents of the cellphone they took from him to the new device. This way, the phone itself would remain in the hands of the police, but its contents would go to its owner.
The police said: "The response was written contrary to accepted practice, therefore the commander of the unit in charge of the investigation ordered an investigation and action to prevent the recurrence of similar cases in the future.".
