Unlawful Search in the Context of Judicial Decisions

N.A.

Article Details

Unlawful Search in the Context of Judicial Decisions

Authors:

N.A.

Publisher:

Erciyes University

Main Topics:

Ceza Hukuku

Journal:

Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.19 Issue 1, pp.557-607

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

4/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001316544

pISSN:

1306-3839

Keywords:

Abstract:

 Investigating and evaluating the material facts in accordance with the law is of great importance for the proper conduct of the trial and the administration of justice. The article discusses in detail the concept of unlawful search within the framework of judicial decisions according to Turkish law of criminal procedure. The term unlawful search refers to judicial and preventive searches that run counter to the stipulations of international and national legislations. The search process is a protective measure in criminal procedure law. The search process, being a protective measure in criminal procedure law, inherently encroaches upon the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens under the suspicion of a committed crime. The states obligation to ensure public security and order to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens makes it essential to implement the search process. One of the important elements in criminal procedure is whether the procedures carried out to obtain criminal evidence comply with the law. The fundamental characterization distinguishing between preventive search and judicial search, as well as the procedural provisions to which it is subject, hinges on whether the search process aims to prevent the commission of a crime or to find evidence of a crime already committed. The definition of the search, its legal nature, its types and the search process are decided according to the degree of suspicion. The concept of suspicion encompasses simple suspicion, reasonable suspicion, sufficient suspicion, and strong suspicion. Simple suspicion is the lowest degree of suspicion. It appears as an assessment of a prosecutable act. It is also called initial suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is the suspicion experienced in response to concrete events based on the course of life. In order for the suspicion to be considered reasonable, there must be information or documents that can convince an impartial observer that the person may have committed a crime. Sufficient suspicion can be defined as the degree of suspicion required to proceed to the prosecution stage by issuing an indictment against the person under investigation. Strong suspicion is the intensity of suspicion required to implement severe protective measures such as arrest, for the person under investigation. The concept of reasonable suspicion is an important criterion in events subject to judicial search. In addition to legal legislation, judicial decisions pertaining to past events and prosecutions play a guiding role in shaping the execution of search activities by public institutions wielding public power. Judicial decisions help us understand the purpose of the legislator by elucidating certain concepts by the application of national and international legislation to concrete events, and also verify whether the decision made is in accordance with the law. Errors made in handling concrete events undergo legal scrutiny, resulting in legal and criminal sanctions. Situations in which a search may be deemed unlawful through judicial decisions, situations in which a search warrant must be issued are discussed and legal and criminal consequences are stated. Criminal consequences arise if public officials misuse their authority to ensure public order and security or if immunity of domicile is violated. The legislature has introduced some limitations regarding the place and time of search. Even if evidence obtained from an improperly executed search strongly suggests the person in question committed a crime, it cannot serve as a legal basis due to the illegality of the search.

 Investigating and evaluating the material facts in accordance with the law is of great importance for the proper conduct of the trial and the administration of justice. The article discusses in detail the concept of unlawful search within the framework of judicial decisions according to Turkish law of criminal procedure. The term unlawful search refers to judicial and preventive searches that run counter to the stipulations of international and national legislations. The search process is a protective measure in criminal procedure law. The search process, being a protective measure in criminal procedure law, inherently encroaches upon the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens under the suspicion of a committed crime. The states obligation to ensure public security and order to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens makes it essential to implement the search process. One of the important elements in criminal procedure is whether the procedures carried out to obtain criminal evidence comply with the law. The fundamental characterization distinguishing between preventive search and judicial search, as well as the procedural provisions to which it is subject, hinges on whether the search process aims to prevent the commission of a crime or to find evidence of a crime already committed. The definition of the search, its legal nature, its types and the search process are decided according to the degree of suspicion. The concept of suspicion encompasses simple suspicion, reasonable suspicion, sufficient suspicion, and strong suspicion. Simple suspicion is the lowest degree of suspicion. It appears as an assessment of a prosecutable act. It is also called initial suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is the suspicion experienced in response to concrete events based on the course of life. In order for the suspicion to be considered reasonable, there must be information or documents that can convince an impartial observer that the person may have committed a crime. Sufficient suspicion can be defined as the degree of suspicion required to proceed to the prosecution stage by issuing an indictment against the person under investigation. Strong suspicion is the intensity of suspicion required to implement severe protective measures such as arrest, for the person under investigation. The concept of reasonable suspicion is an important criterion in events subject to judicial search. In addition to legal legislation, judicial decisions pertaining to past events and prosecutions play a guiding role in shaping the execution of search activities by public institutions wielding public power. Judicial decisions help us understand the purpose of the legislator by elucidating certain concepts by the application of national and international legislation to concrete events, and also verify whether the decision made is in accordance with the law. Errors made in handling concrete events undergo legal scrutiny, resulting in legal and criminal sanctions. Situations in which a search may be deemed unlawful through judicial decisions, situations in which a search warrant must be issued are discussed and legal and criminal consequences are stated. Criminal consequences arise if public officials misuse their authority to ensure public order and security or if immunity of domicile is violated. The legislature has introduced some limitations regarding the place and time of search. Even if evidence obtained from an improperly executed search strongly suggests the person in question committed a crime, it cannot serve as a legal basis due to the illegality of the search.

 Investigating and evaluating the material facts in accordance with the law is of great importance for the proper conduct of the trial and the administration of justice. The article discusses in detail the concept of unlawful search within the framework of judicial decisions according to Turkish law of criminal procedure. The term unlawful search refers to judicial and preventive searches that run counter to the stipulations of international and national legislations. The search process is a protective measure in criminal procedure law. The search process, being a protective measure in criminal procedure law, inherently encroaches upon the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens under the suspicion of a committed crime. The states obligation to ensure public security and order to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens makes it essential to implement the search process. One of the important elements in criminal procedure is whether the procedures carried out to obtain criminal evidence comply with the law. The fundamental characterization distinguishing between preventive search and judicial search, as well as the procedural provisions to which it is subject, hinges on whether the search process aims to prevent the commission of a crime or to find evidence of a crime already committed. The definition of the search, its legal nature, its types and the search process are decided according to the degree of suspicion. The concept of suspicion encompasses simple suspicion, reasonable suspicion, sufficient suspicion, and strong suspicion. Simple suspicion is the lowest degree of suspicion. It appears as an assessment of a prosecutable act. It is also called initial suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is the suspicion experienced in response to concrete events based on the course of life. In order for the suspicion to be considered reasonable, there must be information or documents that can convince an impartial observer that the person may have committed a crime. Sufficient suspicion can be defined as the degree of suspicion required to proceed to the prosecution stage by issuing an indictment against the person under investigation. Strong suspicion is the intensity of suspicion required to implement severe protective measures such as arrest, for the person under investigation. The concept of reasonable suspicion is an important criterion in events subject to judicial search. In addition to legal legislation, judicial decisions pertaining to past events and prosecutions play a guiding role in shaping the execution of search activities by public institutions wielding public power. Judicial decisions help us understand the purpose of the legislator by elucidating certain concepts by the application of national and international legislation to concrete events, and also verify whether the decision made is in accordance with the law. Errors made in handling concrete events undergo legal scrutiny, resulting in legal and criminal sanctions. Situations in which a search may be deemed unlawful through judicial decisions, situations in which a search warrant must be issued are discussed and legal and criminal consequences are stated. Criminal consequences arise if public officials misuse their authority to ensure public order and security or if immunity of domicile is violated. The legislature has introduced some limitations regarding the place and time of search. Even if evidence obtained from an improperly executed search strongly suggests the person in question committed a crime, it cannot serve as a legal basis due to the illegality of the search.

 Maddi gerçeğin hukuka uygun bir şekilde araştırılması ve değerlendirilmesi, yargılamanın sağlıklı yürümesi ve adaletin tecelli etmesi için büyük önem arz etmektedir. Makale, Türk ceza muhakemesi hukukuna göre yargı kararları çerçevesinde hukuka aykırı arama kavramını detaylı bir şekilde ele alır. Hukuka aykırı aramadan maksat adli ve önleme aramalarının uluslararası ve ulusal mevzuat hükümlerine aykırı olması anlamına gelir. Arama işlemi ceza muhakemesi hukukunda bir koruma tedbiridir. Arama işlemi konusu gereği vatandaşların temel hak ve özgürlüklerine suçun işlendiği hususunda duyulan şüphe ile müdahale eder. Devletin, vatandaşlar üzerinde temel hak ve özgürlüklerini koruma amacıyla kamu güvenliği ve düzenini sağlama yükümlülüğü koruma tedbirlerinden olan arama işleminin uygulanmasını elzem kılmaktadır. Ceza muhakemesinde önemli olan unsurlardan birisi de, suçun işlenmesi sırasında meydana çıkan delilleri elde etmek için yapılan işlemlerin, hukukun ortaya koymuş olduğu kurallara uygun olup olmadığıdır. Arama işleminin hangi zamanlarda suçun işlenmesini önleme, hangi zamanlarda ise işlenen suçun delilini araştırma işlemi olduğu, önleme araması ve adli arama ayrımının temel nitelendirmesine ilişkin sorular olduğu gibi, tabi olduğu usul hükümlerini de belirlemektedir. Aramanın tanımı, hukuki niteliği, türleri ve işlemi için gereken şüphe dereceleri üzerinde durulur. Şüphe kavramı; basit şüphe, makul şüphe, yeterli şüphe ve kuvvetli şüphe olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Basit şüphe, şüphenin en hafif derecesidir. Kovuşturulabilir bir fiil değerlendirmesi olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Başlangıç şüphesi olarak da adlandırılmaktadır. Makul şüphe, hayatın akışına göre somut olaylar karşısında genellikle duyulan şüphedir. Şüphenin makul sayılabilmesi için, kişinin suç işlemiş olabileceği konusunda tarafsız bir gözlemciyi inandırabilecek bilgi veya belgelerin bulunması gerekmektedir. Yeterli şüphe, hakkında soruşturma yürütülen şahıs hakkında iddianame düzenleyerek kovuşturma aşamasına geçebilmek için gereken şüphe derecesi olarak tanımlanabilir. Kuvvetli şüphe ise hakkında soruşturma yürütü-len kişi için ağır olan tutuklama gibi koruma tedbirlerinin uygulanması için gereken şüphe yoğunluğudur. Adli arama işlemine konu olaylarda makul şüphe kavramı önemli bir kriterdir.

Article Details

Unlawful Search in the Context of Judicial Decisions

Authors:

N.A.

Publisher:

Erciyes University

Main Topics:

Ceza Hukuku

Journal:

Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.19 Issue 1, pp.557-607

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

4/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001316544

pISSN:

1306-3839

Search

illegal search

evidence obtained due to illegal search

results of illegal search

judicial decisionArama

hukuka aykırı arama

hukuka aykırı arama dolayısıyla elde edi-len deliller

hukuka aykırı aramanın sonuçları

yargı kararı

Issues

Article Details

Authors: N.A.

Publisher: Erciyes University

Main Topics: Ceza Hukuku

Journal: Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.19 Issue 1, pp.557-607

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 4/2024

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2001316544

pISSN: 1306-3839

Issues

Authors:

N.A.

Publisher:

Erciyes University

Main Topics:

Ceza Hukuku

Journal:

Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.19 Issue 1, pp.557-607

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

4/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001316544

pISSN:

1306-3839