20 Aug Binding of Evidence Seized In A Search Without A Search Warrant
38 of our Constitution. Article 6. “findings obtained in violation of the law cannot be accepted as evidence.”It is clear that findings obtained in violation of the law under the provision cannot be accepted as evidence. If so, the evidence seized in the search without a search decision issued by the Public Prosecutor will be decriminalized evidence and will not be binding. You can look at the example Supreme Court decision.
7. Criminal Department
Base Number: 2018/18571
Decision Number: 2021/7505
“Case Law Text”
Court :Criminal Court of First Instance
Crime: opposition to law 5607
Sentencing : convictions, forfeiture, liquidation
The decision given by the local court was appealed; after the file was read according to the nature of the application, the type of punishment, the duration and the date of the crime, the requirement was discussed and considered on behalf of the Turkish nation;
A search of the defendant’s workplace by law enforcement on the date of the event in the drawer of the table and taking the liberty of 57 total package runaway bandrolsuz cigarettes seized; file according to the scope, search illicit goods is not a decision given by the court as the defendant and the delay is undesirable on the grounds that the absence of a search warrant issued by the public prosecutor a written, accordingly, calls to procedures and evidence seized in violation of the law of evidence and is against the law of our Constitution, and it serves as 38. Article 6. “findings obtained in violation of the law cannot be accepted as evidence.”provision and again 5271 of CMK 206/2-a, 217/2, 230/1. article and paragraph of the law of evidence obtained should be used in the appropriate manner, what those obtained in violation of the law cannot prevail in the face of explicit provision in the form of edits, the defendant obtained in an unlawful manner and at any stage to accept the blame turned out to be a fugitive instead of considering the provision of goods based on the conviction of acquittal cannot be in writing,
By admissions;
1-61 of the law No. 7242, which entered into force after the provision was published in the Official Gazette dated 15.04.2020. 3/22 of Law No. 5607 with article. added to the article ” if the value of the Goods is light, the penalties will be reduced to half, and if it is very light, to one-third.”the regulation in the form of provisions in favor of the accused, again 62 of the same law. 5/2 of Law No. 5607, amended by Article. according to the paragraph added to Article 5237, it is understood that effective application of remorse is possible at the stage of prosecution; 7. Article 63 of law 7242. provisional article 5607 added to the Law No. 12. Article 2. determination of whether the legal conditions of the relevant provisions are formed by observing the paragraph and the task of implementing them according to the result must also belong to the Local Court,
2 – failure to comply with the rule that the court fine must be cashed on the day after the court fine is assigned on the main day and the reasons for the increase and discount are applied,
3-24.11.2015 day 29542 published in the Official Gazette and entered into force of the Constitutional Court 08.10.2015 date and 2014/140 basis, 2015/85 Decision No. 5237 with the cancellation decision No. 53 of the TCK. due to the cancellation of some parts of the article, it is necessary to re-evaluate the mentioned article,
4-crime seized goods 5607 Law No. 13/1. 54/4 by TCK. in accordance with article 54/1 of the TCK as an application article in the provision paragraph. showing the article, as well as ruling on the liquidation of goods,
Contrary to the law, since the appeals of the defendant …have been considered in place in this respect, the provision is 8/1 of law 5320 for these reasons. 321 of CMUK No. 1412 in force under Article. its dissolution was unanimously decided on 07.06.2021.(TCK= Turkish Criminal Code, CMUK= Law of Criminal Procedures)
No Comments