What legal rules is the law enforcement power to use force based on?
In the legal assessment of physical force applied to a person, the first question is not whether the person who intervened was a law enforcement officer, but which statutory power was used to meet which concrete need. Law enforcement is charged with protecting public order and the rights of others; yet the importance of the duty does not mean that every physical intervention is legitimate. The use of force is exceptional in nature and is reviewed in terms of its legal basis, actual necessity, the choice of means, the duration of the force and the moment it was brought to an end.
PVSK Article 16: Force only to the extent necessary to break resistance
Under Article 16 of the Police Duties and Powers Law No. 2559 (PVSK), when a police officer encounters resistance in the course of duty, the officer may use force for the purpose of breaking that resistance and to the extent necessary to do so. The provision distinguishes among physical force, material force and, where its conditions are separately met, the use of firearms. Physical force is the officer’s direct bodily strength; material force covers handcuffs, batons, pressurized water, tear-gas devices, physical barriers and other service equipment listed in the law. That these are provided for in legislation does not mean that they can be applied automatically to any person. 1
Whether resistance actually exists, its form, the person’s age and health, the risk to third parties nearby, the conditions at the scene and whether a milder method could have been used must all be assessed. The law contains a provision under which the superior determines the means and the degree of force in interventions by a group of officers; however, such an instruction does not legitimize an unlawful act in advance. The liability of the superior and of the officer who carries out the act is examined separately according to their specific conduct and fault.
The source of authority differs according to the type of law enforcement and the nature of the duty
PVSK Article 16 is the core provision concerning the police. Article 9 of the Neighborhood and Street Watchmen Law No. 7245 expressly states that watchmen also hold the power to use force and firearms under PVSK Article 16. For the gendarmerie, the coast guard and other law enforcement units, their own establishment and duty legislation must be assessed together with whether the specific task is of a judicial or a preventive nature. Accordingly, the authority of all law enforcement officers cannot be reduced to a single statutory article. Nevertheless, review of legality, necessity and proportionality, as well as the prohibition of ill-treatment, is observed in every public-authority intervention. 1 2
Reviewing the lawfulness of the use of force: Six decisive questions
Does the intervention have a statutory purpose and a legitimate ground?
An offense alleged to have occurred earlier, a verbal argument or criticism of a law enforcement action cannot, on its own, justify applying physical punishment to a person. Stopping, identity checks, apprehension, search and detention are distinct legal measures; the presence of the conditions of one does not automatically create all the conditions of another. The statutory basis of the law enforcement action and the limits of the measure that could be used at that stage are examined separately.
Is physical force actually necessary?
Necessity must be based not on abstract danger or an officer’s discomfort but on the concrete situation at the moment of the intervention. A person merely asking about a search warrant, objecting to a record or exercising legal rights cannot be equated with an actual attack. On the other hand, it cannot be said that in every case involving only verbal conduct law enforcement may take no other security measure; the independent authority on which the measure rests and the danger that calls for the use of force must be shown concretely. 3
Are the means and force chosen proportionate to the danger?
Proportionality is examined in terms of the suitability of the intervention for its purpose, the possibility of reaching the same result by a milder method and the necessity of the burden placed on the individual’s rights. The brief holding movement required for law enforcement to make a safe apprehension and striking a person already under control are not in the same legal position. The means used, the area of the body targeted, the intensity of the violence and how long it lasted are decisive.
Should a prior warning have been given?
PVSK Article 16 as a rule provides for warning the person that force will be used if the resistance continues. If the nature and intensity of the resistance make a warning practically impossible or unnecessary, the statutory exception may be discussed. It is not correct to say that failing to give a warning at all automatically constitutes an offense on its own, or that it invalidates the use of force in every case; why a warning could not be given and on what other conditions the intervention is considered justified must be determined in the specific case. 1
Why did the force continue after the resistance ended?
The most critical distinction is how the intervention changes over time. That the person initially resisted does not give unlimited permission for new force after the person has been handcuffed, placed in a police vehicle or safely brought under control. When the resistance ends, the justification for physical intervention other than a necessary security measure may also disappear. In particular, blows to a handcuffed person, striking the head of a person laid on the ground, retaliation in the patrol vehicle or humiliating acts at the police station cannot be hidden behind the power to use force. That said, where there is a concrete and continuing danger of escape or harm, a necessary and proportionate security measure is assessed separately. 3
How is the harm that resulted from the force explained?
The location of the marks seen in the forensic examination on the body, health findings before and after the intervention, photographs and footage, the time at which the records were drawn up and from what angle witnesses saw the incident are examined together. That an injury is minor does not automatically prove that lawful force was used; nor does every injury, on its own, prove that law enforcement committed an offense. What is decisive is whether a verifiable connection can be established between the way the injury occurred and the force that was legally necessary.
What limits apply to handcuffing, apprehension and detention?
Handcuffs are one of the means of material force under PVSK Article 16; they are not mandatory or automatic in every apprehension. The conditions for apprehension and detention, and the security need that calls for handcuffing, must be examined separately. The risk of escape, the danger of harming oneself or third parties, the resisting conduct and the duration of the intervention all affect this examination. Handcuffing cannot be used as a means of punishment or public exposure. Even where the use of force is accepted as necessary, unnecessary tightness, pain that continues for a long time and the humiliation of a person under control call for a new legal assessment. 1 3
The person’s transfer to a hospital, procedures at the holding cell and the journey in the law enforcement vehicle are not areas outside law enforcement oversight. An allegation of resistance at the first stage of the incident is not enough to explain all later injuries. For this reason, camera timestamps, patrol vehicle recordings, transfer and handover records, the time of the medical examination and any repeat examination reports must be placed in the same chronology.
Use of firearms is not subject to the same conditions as other means of intervention
Because the use of firearms can have graver consequences than other methods of force, PVSK Article 16 regulates it under separate circumstances and procedures. The provisions differ with regard to legitimate defense, resistance that cannot be overcome by physical or material force, the apprehension situations listed in the law and certain serious attacks. In the law’s provision on firing for the purpose of apprehension, the “halt” command, the warning and the measure sufficient to secure the person’s apprehension are important. However, this sequence cannot be applied mechanically to every possible use of firearms; there are also special provisions on sudden armed attacks and the legitimate-defense provisions of the TCK. 1
That the power to use firearms appears in the law does not mean that lethal force may be used against every person who flees. The right to life calls for stricter scrutiny in terms of the absolute necessity of the intervention, concrete danger and proportionality. Where death or serious injury results from the use of firearms, the relevant provisions of the TCK on homicide, injury and negligence, and the grounds for justification, are assessed separately; it cannot be assumed in advance that the incident falls solely under TCK Article 256.
How is the criminal liability of a law enforcement officer determined?
TCK Article 256: Force beyond the extent the duty requires
TCK Article 256 provides that where a public official who holds the power to use force uses force against persons beyond the extent required by the duty while performing it, the provisions on intentional injury apply. This article is not a general punishment provision for every kind of unlawful conduct; it requires a concrete link in terms of the duty, the power to use force, the nature of the force and the mental element. The basic and aggravated forms of the offense of injury, and the provisions on injury aggravated by its consequences, are examined if their conditions are met. 4
The aggravated form in TCK Article 86/3-d, abuse of the influence held by a public official, may also become important depending on the circumstances of the file. Its application is not automatic; it must be explained that the act was committed by abusing public influence, together with the elements of the offense and the authority used in the incident. When a judgment is rendered, the same fact must also be prevented from being counted against the defendant more than once without reasoning.
TCK Articles 94 and 95: Torture and aggravated consequences
As for the offense of torture, TCK Article 94 regulates conduct by a public official that is incompatible with human dignity and causes the victim bodily or mental suffering, affects the victim’s capacity to perceive or to act on their will, or leads to humiliation. The nature of the specific acts, their repetition, their continuity over the course of events, the victim’s being under actual control and the psychological consequences are examined. The existence of a report stating only an “injury that can be remedied by simple medical intervention” does not automatically rule out the possibility of torture. TCK Article 95 separately regulates aggravated consequences. Under TCK Article 94/6, no statute of limitations applies to the offense of torture; for past events, the temporal application of criminal laws is examined separately. 4
In its decision of 28.02.2017, 2014/269 E., 2017/108 K., the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation discussed the difference between torture and intentional injury through exceeding the power to use force, in terms of the nature of the acts and their systematic application. Not every unlawful blow is automatically torture; but violence that is combined with humiliation or becomes systematic over a given period cannot be dismissed by characterizing it merely as simple injury. The characterization of the offense in criminal law must be made on the basis of the evidence and the incident as a whole. 5
TCK Article 96 and the relationship with other offenses
The offense of maltreatment (eziyet) is regulated separately in TCK Article 96. If the elements of the offense of torture are absent from a public official’s act, then, depending on the features of the incident, other provisions such as maltreatment, injury, threat, insult, deprivation of liberty or abuse of office may be discussed. It should not be assumed that these can be applied together to the same incident without limit; the constituent elements of each offense and the relationship of concurrence among offenses must be explained separately. 4
The difference between legitimate defense and exceeding its limits
A law enforcement officer may benefit from the legitimate-defense provisions under TCK Article 25 against an unjust attack directed at the officer or another person. However, the existence of an unjust attack, the need for defense contemporaneous with the attack, and proportionality are reviewed. Once the danger has ended, continuing the same force does not become justified merely because of the initial attack. Furthermore, the conditions for exceeding the limits in TCK Article 27 must not be confused with intentional ill-treatment and lawful use of force. 4
Liability of superiors and of officers who did not intervene
Beyond the officer who carried out the act, the position of public officials who gave orders, who had a duty of oversight or who remained inactive despite having the means to prevent the intervention may be examined separately. TCK Article 94/5 provides that no sentence reduction is made on that ground where the offense of torture is committed by omission. However, being present at the same place does not, by itself, make everyone a perpetrator; the person’s duty, knowledge of the incident, ability to intervene and fault must be established. 4 6
What principles do the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR establish?
Şahin Kaya: Force used after handcuffing must be separately justified
In its Şahin Kaya decision (Application No. 2020/32918, 05.10.2023), the Constitutional Court assessed the injuries in the applicant’s medical reports together with the law enforcement justification of resistance, and stated that it had not been shown why renewed physical force was necessary in the patrol vehicle and in the hospital room after the applicant had been apprehended and handcuffed (§§ 37–41). It also found problems in terms of an effective investigation because weight was given to law enforcement statements and the witness and medical evidence capable of clarifying the incident was not sufficiently discussed (§§ 43–45). The decision shows that the substantive and procedural limbs of the prohibition of ill-treatment are reviewed separately. 3
Mehmet Ali Çintan: Allegations of violence in detention must be investigated
The Constitutional Court’s Mehmet Ali Çintan decision (Application No. 2018/13137, 29.06.2022) concerns allegations of being beaten in detention and of the lack of an effective investigation. The Court’s official decision record shows the outcome of a violation. The detailed facts and reasoning of this decision have not been expanded here without being separately compared with the original text of the decision. 7
Erhan Girgin: An allegation of failure to prevent violence must also be investigated
In the Erhan Girgin decision (Application No. 2021/20981, 13.03.2025), the Court examined how the complaint of an applicant who had been made to kneel and kept waiting under law enforcement supervision was investigated with respect to the possible omissions of different officials. Assessing the insufficient action against the other officials alleged and the length of the investigation, the Constitutional Court held that the procedural limb of the prohibition of ill-treatment had been violated (§§ 19–22). This decision does not mean that all the officials were found guilty; it requires arguable allegations to be examined effectively with respect to each official. 6
Bouyid v. Belgium: Even a single slap can be degrading treatment
In Bouyid v. Belgium (Application No. 23380/09, 28.09.2015), the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR held that slaps given by officers at a police station to persons under their control, in circumstances where they were not strictly necessary because of those persons’ conduct, amounted to degrading treatment; it also found a violation with regard to the effective investigation. This decision shows that the severity of a visible injury is not, on its own, the measure of constitutional and Convention protection. 8
How is an allegation of police violence investigated, and what evidence is collected?
Where there is an arguable allegation of ill-treatment, the State’s obligation is not limited to refraining from violence. The public prosecutor’s office must carry out the steps suited to clarifying the allegation, compare different accounts with objective records and identify the persons who took part in all phases of the incident. CMK Article 160 regulates the prosecutor’s duty to investigate the material truth. In particular, CMK Additional Article 1 provides that the investigation of certain allegations concerning law enforcement officers, including homicide, intentional injury, torture and exceeding the limit of the power to use force, is conducted by public prosecutors in person and as a priority, and that the resulting cases and appellate review are handled as a priority. 9
Records that must be preserved immediately after the incident
• Medical records: The initial and subsequent forensic examination reports, radiology results, physicians’ observations, dated photographs showing the location of the wounds and, where appropriate, a psychiatric evaluation.
• Footage: Obtaining, before it is deleted, footage from the scene, workplaces, the surroundings of the residence, MOBESE/KGYS, the law enforcement center, hospital entrances and any vehicle cameras; verifying the integrity of the footage and comparing time information.
• Official documents: Records of apprehension, body search, handcuffing, use of force, detention, transfer, medical examination, handover and the incident; the times of drafting and signing; duty and patrol rosters.
• Witnesses and physical data: People who directly saw the incident, people working in the area, witnesses who saw the aftermath, photographs of the scene and other recordings obtained in accordance with the legislation.
• Timeline: The event before the intervention, the warning, first contact, the end of the resistance, handcuffing, being placed in the vehicle, arrival at the health facility, the holding cell and the moment of release are each recorded separately.
Because certain recordings can be deleted automatically within a short time, requesting that footage be placed under protection immediately is important in practice. That the victim has no footage does not remove the right to request that it be obtained from the relevant institution; access to and use of the data depend on personal data protection rules and criminal procedure.
Is a law enforcement record sufficient on its own?
A record is important evidence; however, the fact that those involved in the incident describe their own conduct does not make objective review by the investigating authorities unnecessary. If there are contradictions among camera footage, the medical report and witness statements, they must be resolved with reasons. A decision issued without discussing why footage that does not match a record differs from it may raise problems with regard to the obligation of effective investigation. 3 6
Remedies available to the victim and deadlines to watch
Criminal complaint to the prosecutor’s office and participation in the investigation
When applying to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, the date and place of the incident, the identities of the officials if known, at what stage and how the intervention was carried out, the injuries and the existing evidence must be stated clearly. Where the victim cannot access the evidence, it may be requested that the relevant footage and official records be collected by the prosecutor’s office. The application does not mean that the alleged perpetrators will automatically be treated as guilty; it aims to start a fair and effective search for evidence.
Two-week objection to a decision of non-prosecution
Under CMK Article 173, a person harmed by the offense may object to a decision of non-prosecution (kovuşturmaya yer olmadığı kararı) within two weeks of its notification to them, before the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) in the place where the high criminal court (ağır ceza mahkemesi) within the jurisdiction of the prosecutor who issued the decision is located. The objection must make concrete which evidence was not collected, which contradictions were not resolved and the facts that may require a public prosecution to be brought. This general explanation of the time limit does not remove the need to examine separately the notification and the features of the specific file. 9
Individual application to the Constitutional Court
Where effective remedies have been exhausted and the other admissibility conditions are met, an individual application to the Constitutional Court may come into question. The general application period is 30 days from learning of the final act or decision. However, the starting date of the application, the remedy that must be exhausted, the nature of the ongoing investigation, exceptional circumstances and the act through which the rights violation arose must be assessed separately in the specific case. Filing a criminal complaint does not automatically suspend this period in all situations. 10
Compensation, administrative application and disciplinary routes
With regard to harm caused by a law enforcement intervention, an administrative application and a full remedy action (tam yargı davası) concerning the administration’s liability may arise, as may an assessment of personal liability and private-law provisions if their conditions are met. The application and filing periods in administrative action depend on when the person learned of the act, the type of act and the nature of the specific case; a criminal complaint does not automatically suspend all compensation and administrative action periods. A disciplinary complaint also does not take the place of an examination of criminal liability.
Where protective measures listed in the law, such as unlawful apprehension or arrest, are involved, the special compensation regime under CMK Article 141 et seq. may also be examined. However, not every incident of police violence falls under CMK Article 141; the basis of compensation, the act targeted and the judicial route to be used must be determined separately. 9
Comparison table for assessing an intervention
| Situation to examine in the incident | Critical point in the legal assessment | Main means of proof |
|---|---|---|
| Concrete resistance during duty | Statutory authority, necessity, warning and the degree of force used | Intervention record, footage, witness |
| Blows after the person was brought under control | Whether there was a new and independent necessity | Camera, medical report, time chart |
| Injury during handcuffing and transfer | Security need, duration of application and source of the marks | Transfer document, sequential examinations, photographs |
| Failure of a superior or another official to intervene | Legal duty, knowledge, actual ability to intervene and fault | Duty roster, camera, statement |
| Humiliation and violence across several stages | Systematic conduct and human dignity under TCK Article 94 | Chronology, witness, medical and psychological record |
| Serious injury/death from use of firearms | Right to life, statutory conditions, necessity, characterization of the offense | Ballistics, crime scene report, footage, forensic medicine |
This table does not by itself amount to proof of an offense or to the finalization of any particular outcome. For each row, the material facts, possible grounds of justification, the perpetrator’s fault and the admissibility of the evidence as a basis for judgment are examined separately.
Conclusion
The legitimacy of law enforcement’s power to use force derives not from the magnitude of the force applied or the title of the person who intervened, but from its being legally necessary and limited to the concrete danger. The existence of resistance, the necessity of the first contact and the time at which the force was brought to an end are separate questions. In criminal law, injury by reference to TCK Article 256, torture and other offenses must be assessed without being confused with one another; at the constitutional level, the substantive and procedural limbs of ill-treatment must be assessed together. In an allegation of police violence, rights are protected more strongly by obtaining medical documentation immediately, preserving footage that may disappear, recounting the incident chronologically and tracking each filing deadline separately.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the police use physical force solely because of a verbal objection?
A mere objection or conduct in pursuit of a legal right is not, on its own, a ground for physical punishment. If there is another concrete security danger or a statutory condition for intervention, the necessary measure is examined separately. What is decisive is not the nature of the duty but the actual necessity of the force.
Is striking a handcuffed person considered use of force?
Even if handcuffing was necessary at the outset, a blow applied afterward must have its own separate legal justification. If the resistance and the danger have ended, force used for punishment or retaliation cannot be accepted as lawful. The act may be the subject of intentional injury or, depending on the circumstances, other offenses.
If there is no beating report, is an ill-treatment allegation not investigated?
No. A forensic report can be strong evidence, but it is not the only means of proof. Footage, witnesses, earlier and later health data and psychological effects can be examined together. The outcome of each allegation is decided on concrete evidence.
Is administrative permission required to file a complaint against a police officer?
This question is divided according to the offense alleged and the nature of the duty. Public prosecutors conduct, in person and as a priority, the investigation of allegations such as homicide, intentional injury, torture and exceeding the limit of the power to use force listed in CMK Additional Article 1. For other allegations, special investigation and permission regimes must be assessed separately.
Within what period can a prosecutor’s decision of non-prosecution be challenged?
The general period under CMK Article 173 is two weeks from the notification of the decision to the person harmed by the offense. The competent criminal judgeship of peace and the evidence to be submitted must be checked in the specific file.
Can a compensation action be brought against the State because of a law enforcement intervention?
Yes, depending on the conditions; however, the legal basis of the application, the type of harm, service fault, personal liability, the competent judicial route and the time limits are examined separately. The existence of a criminal investigation does not automatically determine the outcome of compensation.
What is the difference between use of force and torture?
TCK Article 256 ties the use of force beyond the necessary extent during duty to the provisions on intentional injury. TCK Article 94, on the other hand, regulates conduct by a public official that is incompatible with human dignity and causes physical or mental suffering and humiliation. All stages of the incident and the systematic nature of the acts are important in determining the characterization of the offense.
Sources
1. Police Duties and Powers Law No. 2559, Art. 16. Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation.
2. Neighborhood and Street Watchmen Law No. 7245, Art. 9. Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation.
3. Constitutional Court, Şahin Kaya, Application No. 2020/32918, 05.10.2023, especially §§ 27–45. Full text of the decision.
4. Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237, Arts. 25–27, 86–87, 94–96, 256. Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation.
5. Court of Cassation Criminal General Assembly, 28.02.2017, 2014/269 E., 2017/108 K. UYAP Case Law.
6. Constitutional Court, Erhan Girgin, Application No. 2021/20981, 13.03.2025, especially §§ 19–25. Full text of the decision.
7. Constitutional Court, Mehmet Ali Çintan, Application No. 2018/13137, 29.06.2022. Constitutional Court decision record.
8. ECtHR Grand Chamber, Bouyid v. Belgium, Application No. 23380/09, 28.09.2015. HUDOC full text.
9. Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271, Art. 141 et seq., 160–161, 172–173, Additional Art. 1. Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation.
10. Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, provisions on individual application and the Constitutional Court’s individual application procedure. Constitutional Court.