Tel Aviv Court Acquits Scooter Rider Over Illegal Police Trunk Search

A Tel Aviv court acquitted a scooter rider of drug possession after ruling that a police trunk search was illegal. Judge Yael Verdelsky excluded the seized cannabis and confession as evidence, securing a full acquittal.

Tel Aviv Court Acquits Scooter Rider Over Illegal Police Trunk Search
Photo: דוברות המשטרה

A Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court has acquitted a scooter rider who was charged with possessing drugs other than for personal use after cannabis and hashish were found in his trunk during a police checkpoint stop. Judge Yael Verdelsky ruled that the search that uncovered the drugs was illegal, ordering them to be excluded as evidence along with the defendant's police confession.

The incident took place in January 2024 during the evening hours. While riding on HaMered Street in Tel Aviv, Yasam riot police officers ordered him to stop at a planned checkpoint for a routine license and document check. During the inspection, the rider was asked to open his trunk to present a reflective vest. However, the officer discovered bags containing suspected drugs inside the compartment, divided into envelopes, weighing a total of over 100 grams. In addition, 1,240 shekels in cash were seized.

During his interrogation, the rider claimed that the drugs were intended solely for his personal use, stating that he usually smokes cannabis at the end of the day. According to him, the division into bags was meant to distinguish between different types of substances rather than for commercial purposes. Following the incident, an indictment was filed against him for possession of drugs not for personal use.

Judge Verdelsky distinguished between stopping the scooter at the checkpoint, which was done lawfully, and the subsequent actions. She determined that questioning the rider by one of the officers was illegal, and the order to open the trunk also constituted an unlawful search. Although the officer claimed he smelled drugs even before opening the compartment, the judge found it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he had reasonable suspicion justifying a search at that stage. Consequently, the court ruled that the violation of the defendant's rights was significant and that excluding the evidence served the public interest, leading to a full acquittal.

Related News