Five police officers who broke into a home in Rehovot and arrested one occupant cannot claim immunity from prosecution, Jerusalem Magistrates Court justice Irit Cohen has ruled, because they did not have a warrant. The family had been the target of a police investigation for protesting the 2005 Disengagement plan from Gaza.
Police commanders had requested that the five be considered immune from prosecution because they are public servants.
The officers face charges filed by a family from Rehovot, who accuse them of illegally breaking into their home and conducting an arrest. The family, with help from the Judea and Samaria Human Rights Council, is charging the officers with assault, abuse of authority, illegal confiscation of property and more.
The charges against the officers stem from an incident that took place in September of 2005. The five officers arrived at the home of the Rehovot family and asked to enter. When the mother of the family insisted that they first present a search warrant, officers broke down the door.
They then arrested the father of the family, ignoring his wife's repeated requests to see a warrant. The father was not allowed to change from his pajamas to street clothes before being dragged out to the police van.
Police noticed that occupants of the apartment were filming the arrest, and confiscated their video camera. However, they forgot to turn off the camera, which continued to document the arrest.
The family from Rehovot has accused police of targeting them because they had filed a complaint against officers the day before, asking the police to return cell phones that were confiscated during a previous search of their home. The previous search was conducted legally due to concerns that members of the family were involved in attempted arson as a protest against the Disengagement plan. Those concerns were found to be baseless.
In a special session meant to determine the question of immunity from prosecution, attorney Henoch Rubin of the prosecution showed Judge Cohen the videotape accidentally recording during the arrest. The mother of the family can be heard repeatedly asking officers to present a search warrant, and even calling the local police department to complain that officers have broken into her home without a warrant.
The officers responded to her requests with ridicule and threats, warning that they would arrest her as well if she continued to press the matter.
Judge Cohen slammed the officers for breaking into the plainants' home “with no explanation and no justification.” The officers conducted the illegal search and arrest “if not with malice, then with indifference to the damage caused, which in this case was the violation of the plainants' privacy and the damage to their property,” she wrote in her verdict.
The importance of deterring such incidents in the future and “fostering a sense of personal responsibility among public servants” makes it necessary to continue the trial, she concluded.