As it is known, the Law No. 2559 on Police Duties and Authority entered into force on 4 July 1934. There have been changes in various articles of this law over time. Law No. 4771, adopted in 3.8.2002, Article 6 of the PPSC, Law No. 5259, adopted in 24.11.2004, Article 10, Law No. 5397, adopted in 3.7.2005, Law No. 5571, adopted in 28.12.2006 In Article 1, amendment of Article 2 was made with the Law no.
The subject of this investigation is to deal with the powers granted to the police by Law No. 5681 and some problems that may arise in the exercise of these powers. As a matter of fact, after the law came into force, it was stated in some news that this law which gives broad powers to the police, restricts rights and freedoms entered into force and some problems will arise in the use of these powers (2).
It is possible to specify the powers given to the police by Law No. 5681 as follows;
1) Stopping and asking for identification:
In Article 1 of Law no. 5681, the police have been given the authority to stop and ask for identity following Article 4 / A of the Law. It is possible to specify these powers as follows;
To prevent the perpetration of a crime or misdemeanor, to ensure the arrest of perpetrators who escaped after the crime, to identify the perpetrators of the offense or misdemeanor, to identify the persons for whom a warrant or enforcement order has been taken, to determine the life, body integrity or property or to prevent an existing or potential danger to the community.
In the text of the article, the criterion for the use of stopping power is determined. However, it should be noted that the phrase makul reasonable reason based on the experience of the police den will cause extremely wrong practices. The other criterion was set as sebep reasonable reason based on the impression obtained from the current situation..
In the continuation of the article, it was stated that durdurma no stopping process can be performed in a way that creates continuity and creates actual situation and arbitrariness ”. However, both of the above mentioned criteria will bring arbitrary implementation in my opinion, and therefore those who perform the stop operation will argue that stopping is not arbitrary based on both criteria.
During this search, the police will inform the person who stopped the reason for stopping and ask questions about the reason for stopping. Will be able to ask for the identity of the person he / she is standing in or other documents to be kept. It should be noted here that the police will never tell you why they stopped the person during the stopping process for reasons such as hiding the evidence of the offense and running away from the crime.
Paragraph 4 of the article states that durma The stopping period shall not exceed the period required for the execution of the transaction which constitutes the basis of the stopping reason ”. I would like to point out that this paragraph will not be applied although it is included in the article text. As a matter of fact, it is unclear how long this period is obligatory for the stop period.
Paragraph 6 of the Article states that, in the case of sufficient suspicion that there is a weapon or any other item of danger on the person stopped by the police or in his vehicle, he may take the necessary measures to prevent harm to himself or to others. It should be noted that the police have been given extensive powers in this direction. Because, as a precautionary measure, the police will not be able to ask the person to take off his clothes or to open parts of the vehicle that are not visible from the inside. Apart from these two cases, the police will be able to carry out all kinds of actions and actions under the name of necessary measures.
With this paragraph of the article, it is seen that an implied search authority is given to the police. Because the police will be able to request the opening of the visible sides of the car and search the necessary measures in those sections. We can say that this provision is an erroneous regulation. Indeed, the presence of the judge’s decision is necessary for the search. In cases where there is a drawback in the delay, the search can be made by the decision of the prosecution office. Even in cases where the public prosecutor could not be reached, the written order of the law enforcement officer was deemed sufficient. Article 116 of the YCMK provides for a reasonable suspicion for the search, while the existence of sufficient suspicion is sought in this paragraph.
Again, this provision contradicts the provision of the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Law. Because PVSK’nin 9/2. article, it is stated that the search will be made by the public prosecutor in mandatory cases by the decision of the judge.
Obviously, Article 6, paragraph 6 of Law No. 5681, with the search in the YCMK, the Constitution and the