Police broke into the wrong apartment: court ruled against them

A police force that arrived to conduct a search in Tel Aviv forcibly broke into a storage room door, but only afterwards did it turn out that the premises were not the original target of the search.

The homeowner demanded compensation for a series of damages that he claimed were caused during the incident. The court partially accepted the lawsuit and ordered the police to pay him 7,400 shekels, including legal expenses.

According to the verdict, the incident occurred last December in Tel Aviv. There was no dispute between the parties that a police force broke into the entrance door of a storage room during a police operation, and that it was subsequently discovered that the property was not the original target for the search.

The police agreed that they must compensate the plaintiff for the door, but claimed that the amount requested is excessive and does not reflect the cost of restoration, among other things because it is an external iron door and not a Pal-Dalet door.

The police also denied that damage was caused to the contents of the storage room and claimed that no connection was proven between any damage and the search operation. Regarding the demand for compensation for emotional distress, they claimed that the search was carried out legally, in good faith and professionally, and that there is no cause to order them to pay compensation for this component.

Registrar Naama Nir heard the testimony of the plaintiff and the testimonies of two of the police officers who participated in the search, and also watched a video that documented the breaking of the door. After examining the evidence, she determined that the lawsuit would be partially accepted.

"This is not a violent breaking of the door, but the creation of an opening in the metal door by crumpling its upper right side with the help of designated equipment," she noted.

She determined that it did not appear that damage was caused to the structure around the door and therefore rejected the demand for compensation for the alleged damage to the concrete belt.

On the other hand, the court accepted the plaintiff's claims regarding the door and its components; it was determined that the replacement of the components was supported by invoices that were not refuted and that these are parts of the door opening mechanism.

The registrar determined that the components were seen in the picture near the place where that crumpling was performed on the door, and therefore accepted the plaintiff's version that they were also damaged as a result of the break-in. She concluded her words with the statement: "I sincerely hope that a similar incident will not recur."