Last update - 00:00 15/02/2007
Tel Aviv District Court rejects use of cellular pinpointing as evidence
By Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondent
The Tel Aviv District Court rejected the use of cellular pinpointing as evidence, in a precedent-setting ruling.
The decision could have far-reaching ramifications on the prosecution's ability to convict suspects in future trials, as well as on the verdicts of past trials in which such evidence was used, as people who were convicted on the basis of such evidence will be eligible to request a retrial.
In recent years, cellular pinpointing has been used as evidence of the location of a given person at a given time. Police consulted experts from cellular communication companies, who would identify the location of the antenna through which a given call was made.
Until Thursday's ruling, such information was automatically accepted as evidence proving the location of a given person at a given point in time.
Hence forth, the prosecution will have to prove, in each trial, that the cellular pinpointing data is reliable evidence, by examining the means by which it was obtained and summoning a cellular communications expert as a witness.
The ruling was made following a legal battle led by attorney Dan Kwal, during his representation of a defendant in the Ohana brother's murder trial.
Kwal used expert witnesses from all four major Israeli cellular companies to prove that cellular pinpointing is unreliable as evidence.
"Such evidence has always been accepted as absolute proof, like DNA evidence. We have been able to prove that that the cellular company experts submitted erroneous and contradictory evidence," said Kwal, who estimated that such evidence was used in some 150 legal proceedings.
The three-judge panel criticized the prosecution for "attempting to intimidate the court" by insinuating that dismissing the cellular pinpointing evidence in the case would have drastic consequences.
"We operate without fear, following our knowledge and faith, and, of course, in accordance with the law, and the precedents set by the High Court of Justice. It is inappropriate for either side to incorporate such insinuation into their arguments, let alone the prosecution, which constitutes part of the enforcing arm of executive branch in the state of Israel," the judges wrote.