A search in prison is a procedure that may be used to ensure the security of the institution; however, having the power to search does not mean that every search method is lawful in every situation. A frisk and cell search, and a detailed search that intrudes more seriously on a person’s privacy, are assessed under separate conditions. An effective complaint should set out the reason for the procedure, how it was carried out and which safeguards were applied before it focuses on what the procedure is called.
What kinds of searches can be carried out in prison?
Article 36 of Law No. 5275 regulates searches without prior notice in the cells and annexes of institutions and on the person and belongings of convicted prisoners. This provision is one of the main bases for conducting searches for security purposes. The provisions applicable to detainees are also assessed within the framework of their own status and the relevant legislation. [1]
Frisk and search of belongings
A frisk search aims to detect prohibited substances or items carried on a person. In a search of belongings, clothing, personal effects and items that may be kept in the institution can be checked. The lawfulness of a search is assessed by reference to authority, purpose, procedure and the concrete manner in which it was carried out. The power to search does not make it legitimate to destroy personal belongings without reason or to treat a person in a degrading manner.
If an item was taken during a search, it matters what was taken, from whom, on what grounds and under which procedure. Keeping an item that is prohibited in the institution, sending an item to a judicial authority as criminal evidence, and damage to a person’s property are separate legal issues. These should not be confused with one another in a complaint.
Cell and common-area searches
In a complaint about a cell search, it cannot be concluded that the search was clearly unlawful merely because it was carried out in the person’s absence or without prior notice. The statutory provision allowing searches without notice must be taken into account. By contrast, the duration of the search, the method used, damage to belongings, the manner in which documents were examined and the accuracy of the records can be reviewed separately.
For documents relating to the defense and for correspondence with a lawyer, the special safeguards of professional secrecy and the right of defense are observed. It cannot be assumed that any paper may be read or retained without limit simply because it is in the person’s possession. The nature of the document, the basis for the procedure and any special decision should be examined separately.
The difference between a detailed search and a general search
For procedures referred to in practice as a “strip search,” the term used in the current regulation is detailed search. The fact that the term has changed does not remove legal review of the procedure. It is examined whether the conditions in Article 34 of the Enforcement Regulation (İnfaz Yönetmeliği) and the privacy safeguards were actually met in the specific case. [2]
Reasonable and serious indications, other methods and the assessment of the superior
The regulation is based on reasonable and serious indications that a prohibited substance or item is present, on the impossibility of detecting it by other means, and on the highest superior of the institution considering it necessary. For this reason, the automatic application of the same heavy intervention to everyone entering the institution, without any individual assessment, cannot be explained by relying on the general power to search.
The complaint should ask what indication was cited, whether less intrusive methods were considered and whether there is a decision of the competent superior. The explanations of the Directorate General of Prisons and Detention Houses (CTE) on practice also emphasize the importance of the reasons and of written instructions. [3] These are basic records that can be requested from the file after the procedure.
Safeguards relating to privacy and the officer
A search must be carried out in a way that protects the person’s dignity, with care for privacy, and in accordance with the relevant procedure. In frisk and body searches, the safeguard of an officer of the same sex and the specific method rules of a detailed search are important. A search of body cavities is not the same procedure as an ordinary frisk; the regulation contains a special provision that it be carried out by a physician.
In a complaint file, the details of the search should be described to the competent authority to the extent necessary. Disclosing the person’s intimate images to the public, or requesting that the search area be recorded on camera in every circumstance, is not a correct general solution. The camera recordings to be requested should cover the part of the existing, lawfully made recordings that relates to the incident; privacy in particular must also be protected.
How is the use of force during a search assessed?
In a dispute about a search, it is also examined why the use of force was necessary and whether the force used was proportionate for that reason. The word “resisted” in a record does not by itself make every use of force lawful. The form of the resistance, the course of the incident, the number of officers, injuries and the available records must be assessed together.
Making a complaint and physically resisting are different
A person’s voicing a legal objection, asking for the reason or later using a complaint route is examined separately from physical conduct. Legal support does not include steering a person into a physical confrontation. Ending the incident safely, meeting any health need and preserving the available records take priority. If a disciplinary decision has been issued, that decision must also be reviewed separately and within the time limit.
The Mulla Zincir decision: violence during a search and the deficiency of the investigation
The Constitutional Court (AYM) decision in Mulla Zincir, Application No. 2021/40061, July 3, 2025 concerns physical and verbal violence allegedly inflicted on a detainee who did not accept a strip search on entering the institution. The Court assessed the deficiencies in the forensic report and the investigation and held that both the substantive and procedural aspects of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity had been violated. It provided for the decision to be sent to the relevant authority so that a new investigation could be conducted. [4]
What does this decision not establish?
The decision does not mean that every search is prohibited or that everyone who refuses a search will automatically be considered right. The force used in the specific case and the adequacy of the investigation were assessed. When the decision is applied to a current file, injury findings, records, application dates and matters that were not investigated must be shown separately.
How is a complaint file prepared?
| Subject of review | Record or explanation that may be requested |
|---|---|
| Basis of the search | Instruction, decision, concrete indication and record |
| Carrying out the procedure | Date, time, place, officer and witness details |
| Use of force | Incident report, forensic report, existing camera recordings |
| Taking of items or documents | Description of the item, record of handover or custody |
| Route of application | Complaint petition, receipt, decision and notification document |
Why are dates decisive?
The date of the search, the date the injury was recorded and the date the first complaint was submitted to the institution may differ from one another. If the first petition was not processed, the delivery or registration information showing this should be kept. A new application made later should explain the existence and content of the earlier application. It should not be assumed that every new petition restarts all the time limits missed in the past.
Is it an obstacle to applying that the evidence is not in the person’s possession?
Being unable to access the institution’s records does not prevent a person from describing the specific incident. The applicant may submit the documents in his or her possession; he or she may also request that records that cannot be accessed be obtained, explaining who holds them and why they are considered important. However, instead of vague accusations, the place, time and course of the incident should be made as specific as possible.
Frequently asked questions
Can a detailed search be carried out at every entry to an institution?
A general security check and a detailed search are not the same. The special conditions of a detailed search and its concrete grounds must be examined.
If a disciplinary penalty is imposed after a search, is a complaint to the prosecutor’s office alone enough?
No. A criminal allegation and an application against a disciplinary decision are different routes. The time limit for the disciplinary decision must be protected separately.
Does the absence of physical marks invalidate every complaint?
No. Depending on the nature of the allegation, other records and witness statements are also important. However, the incident must be made specific and supported by the available evidence.
How are application routes and time limits protected?
Complaint to the enforcement judgeship about an institutional act
If it is claimed that a decision, act or activity within the scope of Law No. 4675 is unlawful, a complaint to the competent enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) is considered. The general time limit is fifteen days from learning of the act and in any event thirty days from the date of the act. An objection against the enforcement judgeship’s decision is provided for within two weeks of notification. Jurisdiction, who may apply and when the time limit starts should be checked according to the specific act. [5]
A complaint does not stop the act automatically. If the statutory conditions are met, a request for postponement or suspension is separately reasoned. Continuing situations, renewed decisions and one-off incidents should not be treated under the same time-limit calculation. It should not be assumed that the time limits for other applications are suspended while waiting for an answer to an earlier application.
Application to the prosecutor’s office for a criminal allegation
For conduct by officers alleged to constitute a crime, an application to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (Cumhuriyet başsavcılığı) may be considered. This route is not the same as a request to set aside an institutional act. The incident, the evidence, the investigative requests and the applicant’s legal position must be stated clearly. The two-week time limit for a person harmed by the offense to object, from notification, to a decision of non-prosecution (kovuşturmaya yer olmadığı kararı) under Article 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK) must also be observed separately. [6]
An application to the Constitutional Court is not a first application that replaces the ordinary routes. Depending on the nature of the complaint, the exhaustion of effective remedies and the admissibility conditions are examined. It cannot be said that every incident can be taken directly to the Constitutional Court, or that exhausting the same route is sufficient in every application. It should also not be assumed that extraordinary applications renew the time limits automatically.
Related articles: Handcuffed Examination in Hospital and Patient Privacy: Rights of Detainees and Convicted Prisoners; Ill-Treatment in Prison Transfer and Transport Vehicles: Conditions, Evidence and Application; Holding in a Single-Occupancy Cell in Prison: Isolation, Solitary Confinement Penalty and Remedies; Searches in Prison and the Protection of Human Dignity; Disciplinary Penalties in Prison: Complaints and Objections, Defense, Time Limits and Legal Review.
References
- Law No. 5275, Articles 36 and 116.
- Enforcement Regulation (İnfaz Yönetmeliği), Article 34; CTE official access to regulations.
- CTE Sesleniş, April 2024, explanation of practice on search procedure.
- AYM, Mulla Zincir, Application No. 2021/40061, July 3, 2025.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 4–6.
- Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure, Article 173.