Publication: Türk hukuk sisteminde önleme araması
Abstract
Ulusal ve uluslararası düzlemde muhafaza edilen temel hak ve özgürlükler bireylere sınırsız bir özgürlük alanı tanımamaktadır. Devlet otoritesi, toplumun güven ve huzurla birarada yaşamasını sağlama amacıyla zaman zaman belli araçlarla bu hak ve özgürlüklere müdahalede bulunmaktadır. Bu müdahale araçlarından en önemlilerinden biri ise, başlıca Adli ve Önleme Araması Yönetmeliği ile Polis Vazife ve Salahiyeti Kanununda düzenlenen ve Türk hukuk sistemine 2002 yılında 24841 sayılı Resmi Gazete ile giren önleme araması kurumudur. Önleme araması; genel sağlık, genel ahlak, kamu düzeni, milli güvenlik veya bireylerin hak ve özgürlüklerinin korunması, suçun engellenmesi, bulundurulması veya taşınması yasaklanmış olan her cinsten patlayıcı madde, silah veya eşyanın tespit edilmesi şeklinde saiklerle icra edilen, somut veya muhtemel tehlikelerin engellenmesine yönelik bir tedbir mahiyetindedir. Kamu düzeninin sağlanması noktasında bu denli geniş bir amaca hizmet eden önleme araması kurumu, hukuk sistemimize girdiği günden itibaren idare tarafından sık sık kullanılan bir araç mahiyetine bürünmüş, bu bağlamda toplumsal yaşamın içerisinde de kendisine hatrı sayılır bir yer edinmiştir. Önleme aramasının bu önemine karşın mahkemelerce tesis edilen kararlar incelendiğinde kolluk personelinin ve toplumu oluşturan bireylerin bahse konu arama hakkında yeterince bilgi sahibi olmadığı anlaşılmaktadır. Zira adli arama kararına ihtiyaç bulunmasına rağmen önleme araması ile iş ve işlemler yapılması veya kolluğun denetim yetkisinin kullanılabileceği durumlarda önleme araması talebinde bulunulması gibi hususlar bu duruma örnek teşkil etmektedir. Bunun en büyük sonucu ise bireylerin temel hak ve özgürlüklerine hukuksuz ve yersiz müdahalelerde bulunulmuş olması ile yargı makamlarının iş yükünün arttırılması durumlarıdır. Keza, önleme araması kurumunun önemine rağmen bu kurumun düzenlendiği yasal mevzuatta yer alan ve Anayasal düzlemde problemler teşkil eden madde metinlerinin varlığı da diğer bir sorun olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Yüksek lisans tez çalışmamızda ise , arama kavramı, arama çeşitleri, önleme araması kurumunun hukuki niteliği, haksız arama ve sonuçları, önleme aramasına ilişkin uygulamada ve mevzuatta yer alan problemler yargı kararları eşliğinde incelenmiş, güncel olarak tartışılan uyuşmazlık noktalarında değerlendirmelerde bulunulmuştur.
The fundamental rights and freedoms protected at both national and international levels do not grant individuals an unlimited sphere of freedom. In order to ensure the coexistence of society with security and tranquility, state authority intervenes in these rights and freedoms from time to time using certain means. One of the most important intervention tools is the institution of preventive search, which entered into the Turkish legal system through the Law on Police Duties and Authorities and the Regulation on Judicial and Preventive Searches, published in the Official Gazette with number 24841 in 2002. Preventive search is a measure executed with motives such as protecting general health and morals, public order, national security , or the rights and freedoms of others, preventing the commission of crimes, and detecting any prohibited weapons, explosive substances, or items carried or possessed, aimed at preventing concrete or potential dangers. Serving such a broad purpose in maintaining public order, the institution of preventive search has become a frequently used tool by the administration since its introduction into our legal system, and as a result, it has gained considerable significance within societal life.Despite the importance of preventive search, when the decisions rendered by courts are examined, it is understood that law enforcement personnel and individuals constituting the society are not sufficiently informed about the search in question. Instances such as conducting actions or procedures with preventive search despite the need for a judicial search warrant, or requesting preventive search in situations where the authority of supervision by law enforcement could be exercised, exemplify this situation. The greatest consequence of this is the unjust and unwarranted interference with indıviduals fundamental rights and freedoms, leading to an increase in the workload of judicial authorities. Furthermore, despite the significance of the institution of preventive search, the existence of textual provisions in the legal regulations governing it, which pose problems at the constitutional level, also emerges as another issue. In our master's thesis, the concept of search, types of searches, the legal nature of preventive search, unjust searches and their consequences, problems in the practice and legislation regarding preventive search have been examined alongside judicial decisions, and evaluations have been made on disputed points currently under discussion .
The fundamental rights and freedoms protected at both national and international levels do not grant individuals an unlimited sphere of freedom. In order to ensure the coexistence of society with security and tranquility, state authority intervenes in these rights and freedoms from time to time using certain means. One of the most important intervention tools is the institution of preventive search, which entered into the Turkish legal system through the Law on Police Duties and Authorities and the Regulation on Judicial and Preventive Searches, published in the Official Gazette with number 24841 in 2002. Preventive search is a measure executed with motives such as protecting general health and morals, public order, national security , or the rights and freedoms of others, preventing the commission of crimes, and detecting any prohibited weapons, explosive substances, or items carried or possessed, aimed at preventing concrete or potential dangers. Serving such a broad purpose in maintaining public order, the institution of preventive search has become a frequently used tool by the administration since its introduction into our legal system, and as a result, it has gained considerable significance within societal life.Despite the importance of preventive search, when the decisions rendered by courts are examined, it is understood that law enforcement personnel and individuals constituting the society are not sufficiently informed about the search in question. Instances such as conducting actions or procedures with preventive search despite the need for a judicial search warrant, or requesting preventive search in situations where the authority of supervision by law enforcement could be exercised, exemplify this situation. The greatest consequence of this is the unjust and unwarranted interference with indıviduals fundamental rights and freedoms, leading to an increase in the workload of judicial authorities. Furthermore, despite the significance of the institution of preventive search, the existence of textual provisions in the legal regulations governing it, which pose problems at the constitutional level, also emerges as another issue. In our master's thesis, the concept of search, types of searches, the legal nature of preventive search, unjust searches and their consequences, problems in the practice and legislation regarding preventive search have been examined alongside judicial decisions, and evaluations have been made on disputed points currently under discussion .