blog.cat.criminal6 min read8/18/2026

Police Ask for the Phone Password: Can You Refuse, and When Is a Court Warrant Required?

Seizing a phone and reading its contents are two different things. According to the current position of the Supreme Court of Israel, the police need a court warrant to search a smartphone: the owner’s consent does not replace it, and the mere existence of a warrant does not provide a simple answer to whether the person is required to disclose the password.

Numbers and facts

•Section 23A — searching computer material
•30 days — period for returning a computer before an extension
•48 hours — initial period for seizing an institutional computer
•April 13, 2022 — procedure for reviewing digital warrants
•December 25, 2019 — decision in CrimApp 7917/19

Seizing the Phone Does Not Yet Mean Permission to Read Messages

The police may physically take the device as potential evidence, but accessing its digital contents constitutes a separate search. Section 23A of the Search Ordinance requires a qualified officer to search computer material pursuant to a court warrant. For these purposes, a smartphone is treated as computer material. Therefore, seizing the device does not by itself permit the police to open messaging applications, photographs, documents, and search history.

The Owner’s Consent Is No Longer Sufficient

The Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, held that the police are not authorized to search data stored on phones and other computer material without a court warrant, even if the person being questioned consents. This is especially important when a person is asked to “unlock it for just one minute” or is told that refusal will appear suspicious. The Supreme Court had previously considered, in CrimApp 7917/19, an unlawful preliminary search of the phones of four suspects who were not told that they could refuse and that their refusal should not be used against them. Obtaining a warrant later does not necessarily cure the violation: the court examines whether the police’s new application is based on information obtained through the unlawful search.

The Warrant Must Be Specific, Not Unlimited

A Magistrates’ Court issues a data-search warrant, usually without the phone owner being present. Under the President of the Supreme Court’s procedure dated April 13, 2022, the judge must clarify the basis and purpose of the search, the offenses under investigation, and the reasons for expecting relevant data to be found on that specific device. The scope of the material and the possibility of limiting the search by dates, file types, keywords, or communications with specific people are also examined. The police must report whether an unlawful search was conducted before applying to the court or whether another substantial violation occurred. Where information potentially protected by attorney-client privilege was present, the court previously limited the search to a specified period and certain keywords.

Are You Required to Disclose the Password?

The legal sources presented do not contain a rule imposing a general and unconditional duty on a suspect to give the police a phone password. Therefore, a request to disclose the code voluntarily cannot automatically be equated with a court order, nor can refusal automatically be treated as a separate offense. The existence of a warrant authorizes the police to conduct the digital search described in it, but whether the owner may be compelled to reveal the password depends on the content of the specific decision and the circumstances of the case. Without reviewing the warrant, it is safer not to speculate about its scope: one may ask directly about the legal basis for demanding the password, state that one does not consent to a voluntary search, and request an opportunity to consult defense counsel.

How to Demand the Return of the Device

According to the study materials, a computer should be returned within 30 days, particularly when the required data can be separated from the device itself, although the court may extend the retention period, and no maximum number of extensions has been established. If the phone is used primarily for business, case law tends to regard it as an institutional computer, even when it contains personal data. Such a computer may be seized only with court authorization; the initial period is 48 hours without the owner being present, and it may be extended before it expires after the court considers the matter. In practice, the investigator is first asked to provide information about the basis for the seizure, the warrant number, and the retention period, and a written request is made for the device to be returned or for the required data to be copied without continuing to retain it. If the police refuse or do not respond, the issue of return and the conditions for continued retention may be referred to the court for consideration.

FAQ

Can a police officer ask to have a phone unlocked without a warrant?

The officer may ask, but voluntary consent does not replace a court warrant to search digital content. The Supreme Court held that the police lack authority to conduct such a search based solely on the owner’s consent.

Can you refuse to disclose the phone code?

The sources examined do not establish a general and unconditional duty to disclose a password in response to an investigator’s oral request. A distinction should be made among a request, a search warrant, and a separate court order, because their contents and legal effects may differ.

What must be included in a smartphone search warrant?

The court examines the purpose and basis of the search, the offenses under investigation, the presumed connection between the data and the case, and the scope of access. Where possible, the search should be limited by a time period, file types, keywords, or specific contacts.

Does evidence automatically become inadmissible after an unlawful search?

Not necessarily. In CrimApp 7917/19, the Supreme Court required examination of the connection between the unlawfully obtained information and the subsequent warrant application; even a close connection does not always, by itself, mean that the warrant must automatically be denied.

When are the police required to return a seized phone?

The study refers to a 30-day period for returning a computer, but the court may extend it without a prescribed limit on the number of extensions. A device treated as an institutional computer is subject to special requirements concerning court authorization and an initial period of 48 hours.

What to do next

Document who seized the device and when, request a copy of the seizure document, and verify whether there is a warrant specifically covering the data search and what limits apply to its scope. Do not confuse surrendering the device itself with voluntarily consenting to full disclosure of its contents; the password demand and any delay in returning the device should each be reviewed separately with defense counsel.