TO THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
File No: …/… D. Business
TO THE SEARCH DECISION
SUSPECT AGAINST:
DEFENSE:
SEARCH DATE:
SUBJECT : It is about the submission of an objection to the search warrant.
DESCRIPTIONS :
1-) The police teams who came to the suspect’s house were searched on … with reference to the investigation carried out on the crime of drug dealing with the client suspect. (Appendix 2)
2-) Forensic search is regulated between articles 116 and 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In case of reasonable doubt about catching this measure or obtaining criminal evidence; it can be applied by searching the suspect or the accused, his belongings, residence, workplace or other places belonging to him. In such cases, there must be events showing that the person sought or the evidence of the crime are found in the specified places so that the search can be carried out. (CMK art.116, 117). The existence of reasonable suspicion was sought in order to conduct a search. This doubt; It should be based on the concrete event that the person whose top, belongings, residence, workplace or other places will be searched has committed that crime. Reasonable doubt is the doubt generally felt in the face of concrete events according to the flow of life. It is essential that the suspicion on the mentioned issues be based on concrete facts. There must be concrete facts to predict that a particular thing will be found or a particular person caught at the end of the search. If the reasonable suspicion is not justified in the decision, the search warrant is unlawful. Search warrant or order; The act that constitutes the reason for the search, the person to be searched, the address of the residence or other place where the search will be made or the goods, the time period for which the decision or order will be valid should be clearly indicated. However, in the dated decision of your Court (Annex 3), the information about the act constituting the reason for the search and which crime items will be searched was not clearly indicated, and the decision was only referred to as “based on an investigation”. However, there was no information regarding the suspicious situation that such a search was carried out in the suspect’s house.
4-) It is against universal law to issue a search and seizure decision with the abstract phrase “to collect evidence due to investigation”, regardless of both national and international legislation. Pursuant to the principle of proportionality in criminal procedure measures, a search and seizure decision cannot be the subject of the same decision. First of all, a search will be made to the extent of necessity, and in the event that a judicial purpose that cannot be reached by the search emerges, a decision to confiscate may be made to the extent of necessity. In this respect, the decision is clearly against the law.
5-) When all these issues are evaluated as ashes; We have been obliged to demand the removal of the said search and seizure decision as it is against the law and procedure.
LEGAL REASONS: 5271 S. K. m. 116, 119, 120
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST: For the reasons we tried to explain above, we request, by proxy, that the search warrant be lifted against the suspect. …/…/…
APPENDICES Suspected Counsel
Lawyer
