Court Criticizes Police Officer for Illegal Phone Seizure to Fuel Private Lawsuit
A Magistrate's Court in Ramle dismissed a libel lawsuit filed by a police officer against a pub owner. The judge ruled that the officer abused his authority by seizing the citizen's phone without a warrant to gather evidence for a personal civil case.
A police officer who seized a citizen's phone without a warrant and accessed it so that a recording could be used in a civil lawsuit against that same citizen has been sharply criticized by the court.
In a ruling by the Deputy President of the Magistrate's Court in Ramle, Judge Abigail Frey, it was determined that this was an abuse of the officer's legal authority for the purpose of illegally collecting evidence for a private civil lawsuit. The ruling was issued this month as part of a libel lawsuit for 100,000 shekels filed by a security and business licensing officer in the Rehovot police (with the rank of Rav-Pakad) against the owner of the "Ha-Sdera" pub. The lawsuit was dismissed, with high costs awarded against the officer.
According to the case files, the friction began when the officer arrived at the pub to address a noise complaint, and the owner allegedly responded with insults. Later, during a "clarification talk" at the police station, the pub owner recorded the conversation with the officer's permission. However, the officer subsequently seized the device and copied the recording file without any legal basis.
Judge Frey emphasized: "The law does not allow a policeman to seize an object for the purpose of using it as evidence in a civil lawsuit that he wishes to file against someone." She noted that the officer's attempt to justify his actions in retrospect raised "a feeling of severe discomfort with his conduct."
The court also highlighted the power imbalance, noting that a business owner depends on permits issued by the police, which requires officers to have a higher degree of resilience. Ultimately, the judge ordered the officer to pay the pub owner 23,000 shekels in legal fees, stating that his conduct "deviates from the norms expected of a public office holder entrusted with law enforcement."
