The High Court of Justice invalidated key sections of a police procedure that allowed officers to demand identification and access police databases without reasonable suspicion, ruling that the practice enabled arbitrary stops and unlawful profiling based on appearance.
In a unanimous decision by Supreme Court Chief Justice Isaac Amit and Justices David Mintz and Yael Willner on Sunday, the court accepted a petition filed by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), together with the Association of Ethiopian Jews, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Tebeka, and the Multiculturalism Clinic at the Hebrew University, and ordered the cancellation of two provisions in the police protocol governing demands for identification.
The ruling cancels two specific sections of police procedure. The first permitted officers to require individuals to present identification based on a generalized “concern” that an offense had been committed or might be committed, while the second allowed officers to verify a person’s details in police computer systems even in the absence of reasonable suspicion.
Writing for the court, Willner declared that lowering the threshold for demanding identification from the statutory standard of “reasonable suspicion” to a mere subjective “concern” unlawfully diluted protections established in law.
She ruled that this interpretation illegally bypassed the balance established by the legislature between law enforcement needs and fundamental rights.
Detention and demands for identification require reasonable suspicion
The court further ruled that checking police databases during an ID stop exposes officers to information unrelated to identification and, therefore, constitutes an additional policing action that is unauthorized. This, the court explained, creates a heightened infringement on privacy, dignity, and freedom of movement.
The judgment builds on an earlier ruling from 2021 that recognized that demanding an ID constitutes a form of detention and therefore implicates constitutional rights.
While the court had previously allowed ID demands in limited circumstances, it ruled that the police’s updated 2022 procedure exceeded those limits.
Willner emphasized that where a person is suspected of committing an offense or is a potential witness, police authority to detain and demand identification is governed by specific sections in the law, which require reasonable suspicion, a threshold the contested police procedure failed to meet.
In their petition, the civil rights organizations argued that, for years, police officers had systematically stopped individuals in public spaces based solely on subjective impressions that they appeared “problematic,” demanded identification without explanation, and searched their details in police databases without legal justification.
According to the petition, this conduct violated the right not to be treated as a suspect without cause, as well as rights to dignity, reputation, privacy, freedom of movement, and equality. The petitioners further argued that the practice had been shown to disproportionately affect Ethiopian Israelis, Arab citizens, and people of Mizrahi (Middle Eastern/North African) appearance, producing feelings of humiliation, exclusion, and long-term social harm.
These arguments were accepted by the court, which ruled that such practices risk arbitrary enforcement and discriminatory policing incompatible with constitutional principles.
ACRI legal advisers Oded Feller and Nitsan Ilani, who represented the petitioners, described the decision as a turning point.
“This is a historic ruling that makes clear that police are not permitted to approach citizens arbitrarily based on external appearance, clothing, or similar factors,” they said. “These policing practices lead to discrimination, humiliation, and over-policing of specific communities, including Ethiopian Israelis, Mizrahim, and Arabs. We will remain vigilant to ensure that the ruling is implemented on the ground.”
The court ordered the police to formally cancel the invalidated sections of the procedure, amend related provisions to limit the duration of ID checks, and refrain from accessing police databases unless lawful grounds for suspicion exist. The state was also ordered to pay NIS 15,000 in legal costs to the petitioners.