High-profile case10/22/2026

In Israel, Publication of the Name of Lahav 433 Officer Tomer Strauss Was Permitted

The Supreme Court of Israel permitted the publication of the name of a senior officer in the Lahav 433 unit who was suspected of sexually harassing and committing indecent acts against a female subordinate. The criminal case was closed for lack of evidence, but the matter was referred for disciplinary review within the police.

Key facts

•Court: Supreme Court of Israel
•Justice: Daphne Barak-Erez
•Decision date: October 22, 2026
•Previous decision: Lod District Court
•The criminal case was closed for lack of evidence
•The case number and the statute applied are not specified

What Happened

At the request of the Haaretz newspaper, the court permitted the publication of the fact that the suspect was police officer Tomer Strauss. The suspicions concerned sexual harassment and indecent acts against a female police officer who served under his command. Strauss denies the allegations.

What the Court Ruled

Supreme Court Justice Daphne Barak-Erez denied Strauss's application for leave to appeal the decision of the Lod District Court. The lower court had previously permitted the publication of his name. The source does not specify the particular statutory provisions or the case number.

How the Investigation Ended

About two months before the court's decision, the criminal case against Strauss was closed for lack of evidence. That decision did not end the internal review: the materials were transferred for disciplinary proceedings within the police. As part of those proceedings, Strauss was expected to report for a meeting with his commander at Lahav 433.

The Disciplinary Consequences

According to the source, a commander's note was placed in Strauss's personnel file over inappropriate remarks uncovered during the investigation. The source does not report any other disciplinary sanctions. Permission to publish the name does not in itself constitute a finding of guilt.

What this means for you

The decision shows that a prohibition on publishing a suspect's name may be lifted even after the criminal case has been closed if the court permits the disclosure of the suspect's identity. However, closing a case for lack of evidence does not preclude separate disciplinary proceedings at the place of service and is not equivalent to a finding of guilt.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings