A search in prison is a procedure that may be used to ensure the security of the institution. However, the purpose, legal basis and manner of carrying out a search are subject to legal review. A frisk search, a search of belongings, the detailed search commonly called a “strip search” in public debate, and a search of body cavities cannot be carried out under the same conditions. In a complaint, the act that took place should first be stated; the search itself, the force used and the investigation that followed should be assessed under separate headings. For a separate assessment of this subject, see the article on complaints and objections to disciplinary penalties in prison.
Article 36 of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures regulates searches in the institution. Article 34 of the Enforcement Regulation (İnfaz Yönetmeliği) contains special conditions and privacy safeguards for detailed searches. The 2021 amendment changed the term used and added safeguards to the text, such as the impossibility of detection by other means. The fact that the procedure is called a “detailed search” does not by itself prove that its application is consistent with human dignity. [1] [2]
Why search types must be kept separate
Searching cells and belongings in the institution
Article 36 of Law No. 5275 and Article 34 of the Regulation allow searches without prior notice in cells and annexes, on the convicted prisoner’s person and in belongings. The Regulation provides for at least one search of the entire institution each month, and for a prisoner to be present during searches of cells and annexes. This power serves to maintain continuous security. However, claims that a search caused damage unrelated to its purpose, or that an item was withheld without reason, may be examined separately. [1] [2]
In a dispute over belongings, the name and quantity of the item taken, the reason for taking it and the record on which it was based should be stated. Special rules may apply to a book, a personal belonging or a legal document. A claim that an item has been lost is not the same legal problem as the seizure of a prohibited item recorded in a report. The record and the deposit receipt help to draw this distinction.
Special conditions for a detailed search
Article 34(2) of the Regulation sets out together the following conditions: reasonable and serious indications that an item prohibited from being brought into or kept in the institution is on the person; the impossibility of detecting it by any other means; and the highest-ranking official of the institution considering it necessary. Having the general power to search does not mean that this more intrusive method may be applied unconditionally at every entry. [2] A closely related subject is covered in the article on overcrowded wards and accommodation conditions in prison.
In the review, where the person came from, how they were supervised during transfer, which item they were suspected of hiding and why another control method was not considered sufficient may matter. These are not conclusive criteria that produce the same result in every case. They serve to assess the administration’s concrete justification and the necessity of the intervention. While taking account of the institution’s responsibility for security, the application should discuss whether the method chosen was necessary.
Safeguards to be observed during a search
Privacy and staged application
The Regulation provides that a detailed search must be carried out with measures ensuring that no one other than the officers sees it, in a manner that does not violate the person’s sense of shame, and that a single-use gown is provided. Upper clothing is removed, searched and put back on before the lower clothing is removed. The search must be completed in the shortest possible time. [2]
These safeguards make it necessary to record in detail how the search was carried out. Whether the door was open, whether other persons could see, whether all clothing was removed at once, or whether there was unnecessary waiting are concrete facts. If there is a claim of humiliating words, acts or repetition, what they were should be stated. Writing only the name of the procedure may not be sufficient to assess the seriousness of the incident.
Status of the officer and searches of body cavities
Body and clothing searches are carried out by security and supervision officers of the same sex. The Regulation requires due care to avoid touching the body during a detailed search and provides for the use of gloves. Where there are reasonable and serious indications that a prohibited item is in a body cavity, the person is asked to remove it themselves; a search of that area is carried out by the prison physician. [2]
A search of body cavities cannot be quietly included in the scope of an ordinary clothing search. Where the procedure has the nature of a medical intervention or of obtaining evidence in a criminal investigation, the relevant special provisions should also be considered. The purpose of the search and the person who carried it out are essential in determining the safeguards that apply. Personal circumstances such as age, health and disability may also change the effect of the procedure on the person.
Record and signature
A detailed search is recorded in a written record (tutanak), which is signed by the officers and the prisoner. If the person refuses to sign, this is noted. A signature does not conclusively show that every aspect of the procedure was lawful. The matters objected to should be stated and, where possible, written into the record, and the application should indicate which entry in the record does not reflect the facts. [2]
If access to a copy of the record is not possible, the date of the request and the reply should be kept. The application may ask for the record to be obtained from the institution. A person who cannot access a document should not be expected to state its contents with certainty; however, showing the steps taken to obtain it makes the review easier.
Does every unlawful search lead to the same constitutional outcome?
The prohibition of torture and ill-treatment in Article 17 of the Constitution is absolute. However, to examine a practice within the scope of that prohibition, the nature and seriousness of the particular incident are assessed. Duration, repetition, physical or mental effect, age, health, unnecessary exposure and humiliating conduct are important. Failure to reach the threshold of ill-treatment does not mean that the practice is outside review under other legislation and rights. [4] [6]
The fact that a search was necessary does not mean that any force used was justified. Force used during a search is examined separately from the search order. When the administration sets out its explanation of security, the applicant should describe the practice concretely. In situations such as injury to a person under state control, the duties of public authorities to provide an explanation and to conduct an effective investigation become particularly important. [5]
Which application route should be used
Enforcement judgeship for an institutional act
If the unlawfulness of the search or of a related institutional act falls within its remit, it may be brought before the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği). Article 5 of Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships provides for a period of fifteen days from learning of the act and, in any event, thirty days from the act. An objection may be made against the enforcement judge’s decision within two weeks of notification. For an ongoing practice, it should be stated concretely what should be stopped or changed. [3]
A complaint does not automatically suspend the act. Where the clear unlawfulness set out in the Law and the conditions of a consequence that is difficult or impossible to remedy occur together, a request for a stay or deferral may be considered. The general application procedure is explained in detail in our article on applying to and objecting before the enforcement judgeship.
Criminal investigation for an ill-treatment claim
An allegation of assault, humiliating conduct or unlawful use of force may be the subject of a criminal investigation by means of a criminal report (suç duyurusu) to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (Cumhuriyet başsavcılığı). The date and place of the incident, the known identities of the officers, the witnesses and the evidence to be collected should be stated. The applicant does not need to have obtained all the evidence in advance; in particular, the records held by public authorities are to be preserved and collected. [5]
If a decision not to prosecute is issued, under Article 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) the current objection period is two weeks from notification. The objection is made to the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) in the place where the heavy penal court is located, which has jurisdiction over the prosecutor who issued the decision. The petition should state the investigative steps that were not carried out and their effect on the outcome. A complaint to the enforcement judgeship does not by itself exhaust this investigation and objection route. [8] For more detail, see the article on petitions to the court and access to justice in prison.
Disciplinary penalty is followed separately
A disciplinary penalty may be imposed on a convicted prisoner or a remand prisoner for conduct alleged to have occurred during a search. The act on which the penalty is based, the evidence and the opportunity for defense are examined separately. A criminal complaint against public officers and the disciplinary process against a prisoner are different proceedings. Starting one does not automatically suspend the objection period in the other file.
If the camera report is challenged in the disciplinary defense, the time interval of the missing section and why it matters should be stated. In a request to hear a witness, what the witness actually saw should be stated. A vague request such as “all witnesses should be heard” is not as explanatory as a request for evidence linked to the incident. This distinction is also visible in the assessments in the Dilek Hatipoğlu decision. [7]
| Issue | Primary legal route | Record that may be decisive in the file |
|---|---|---|
| The institution’s search practice | Complaint to the enforcement judgeship | Procedure, record, date of learning |
| Assault or ill-treatment | Criminal investigation and related objection | Medical report, witnesses, any existing camera recording |
| Disciplinary penalty for a prisoner | Complaint and objection against the disciplinary decision | Defense, decision, evidence requests |
| Alleged constitutional violation | Constitutional Court (AYM) after the appropriate remedies | Completed process and final decision for each complaint |
Violation and inadmissibility in real Constitutional Court decisions
Turan Günana’s fifth application
In Turan Günana (5), Application No. 2013/5545, decided on December 15, 2015, the Constitutional Court (AYM) found the complaint about a strip search manifestly ill-founded. However, it found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 17 of the Constitution, because the allegations of disproportionate force and of three days’ detention without outdoor exercise were not effectively investigated. [5]
The decision should not be shortened to “violation found because of a strip search.” The subject of the violation is the effectiveness of the investigation; the result of the separate complaint about the search is different. When preparing an application, events that were not investigated, records that were not collected and the effect of these gaps should each be shown separately. The provisions of the bylaw (tüzük) in force on the date of the decision should not be confused with the current Regulation. [5]
The Mustafa Çabuk and Remziye Çabuk decision
In Mustafa Çabuk and Remziye Çabuk, Application No. 2021/53176, decided on May 27, 2025, the Constitutional Court found that there was no sufficient concrete explanation of the manner in which the search was carried out and of the aspects of the ill-treatment that reached the required severity. The type of physical violence and the nature of the injury were also not explained. The application was manifestly ill-founded. [6]
This decision does not mean that every application without a medical report will be rejected. However, the person must detail the information they can access and explain the obstacle to documents they could not obtain. Instead of the sentence “I was searched and beaten,” the application should separate the procedure, its duration, the intervention and its effects. [6]
The Dilek Hatipoğlu decision
In Dilek Hatipoğlu, Application No. 2021/60190, decided on December 24, 2025, the complaints concerning the reasoned decision in the disciplinary proceedings, equality of arms and adversarial proceedings were found manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court assessed whether the witness request had been made concrete and whether the camera report had been objected to at the earlier stages. The complaint of ill-treatment was found inadmissible on the ground that the remedies had not been exhausted, because no information or documents were submitted about the outcome of the criminal investigation. [7]
The decision shows that completing the disciplinary file did not complete the separate investigation route for the ill-treatment claim. Where several rights are asserted in one application, the act and the judicial process linked to each right should be clearly established. [7] For a detailed explanation, see the article on health and treatment rights in prison.
How evidence should be preserved and presented
After an incident, it is important to request a medical examination without delay and to record the injuries seen and the complaints made. If the report is thought to be incomplete, the gap and the request for an additional examination should be stated. Psychological effects should not be left at a general statement of discomfort; they can be explained with existing health records. If access to an examination was blocked, its date and the reply to the request should also be recorded.
For camera recordings, the date and time range of the incident and the places where a recording is expected to exist, such as a corridor or an entrance area, should be stated. Instead of asking for the display of the private search area, the preservation and evaluation of existing lawful recordings may be requested. The location of a witness and what they could see should be explained. Not delaying the application, so that the recording is preserved before it is deleted, strengthens the link between the investigation and the concrete incident. On this point, see also the article on camera recordings and privacy in prison.
Where a search is carried out to look for evidence in a criminal investigation, the search and seizure safeguards of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) may also arise. This subject is addressed in our guide on objecting to search and seizure in a criminal investigation. The basis and purpose of a prison security search and of a judicial search should be kept clearly distinct in the file. For a related point, the article on the right to meet a lawyer in prison may also be read.
Conclusion
The legal review of a search in prison considers the need for security together with the protection of human dignity, on the basis of the concrete case. An effective application cannot be made until the type of search, its justification, the manner in which it was carried out and the force used have been identified. Following the separate time limits for the institutional act, the disciplinary decision and the criminal investigation, and preserving the medical records, the record and any existing video recordings in good time, form the basis of the application. For details on freedom of religion and worship in prison, see the article on religion and worship in prison.
Frequently asked questions
Can a detailed search be carried out at every entry into prison?
The general search power does not remove the special conditions for a detailed search. The existence of reasonable and serious indications, the impossibility of detection by other means and the assessment of necessity by the competent superior are examined.
Who can carry out a search of body cavities?
Article 34 of the Regulation provides that this search is carried out by the prison physician. It is not the same procedure as an ordinary clothing search.
Can a complaint still be made if the record was signed?
Signing does not automatically close the complaint route. The events objected to and the information in the record that does not reflect the truth should be explained.
Does an application to the enforcement judgeship replace a criminal report?
Investigating an allegation of ill-treatment through an effective criminal investigation is a separate route. A complaint against an institutional act does not by itself complete that process.
Is it enough to state in a Constitutional Court application that only a strip search was carried out?
No. The form of the procedure, its effect on the person, the evidence available and the remedies used should be explained. The admissibility of each claim is assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures, Articles 2, 6, 36 and 116.
- Enforcement Regulation (İnfaz Yönetmeliği), Article 34; amendments of November 12, 2021.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 4–6.
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Articles 17 and 20.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Turan Günana (5), Application No. 2013/5545, December 15, 2015, in particular paras. 63–83 and the operative part.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Mustafa Çabuk and Remziye Çabuk, Application No. 2021/53176, May 27, 2025, paras. 14–18.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Dilek Hatipoğlu, Application No. 2021/60190, December 24, 2025, in particular paras. 25–34.
- Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Articles 158 and 173. Source access and legislation check: October 13, 2026.