In short
Prohibitions at a prison visit are the limits on items and conduct that the institution has closed off from being brought into the visit area. Not every institution posts the same list. A family visit and a meeting with a lawyer are not the same basket. The period is not in this article. The list is read from the institution's announcement and from the minutes of that visit.
The institution's list
A means of communication, a cutting or piercing tool, a recording device, an unauthorised medicine, or food are headings that are often discussed. The final list is in the announcement of the institution where the visit takes place. If there is no announcement, a list from memory is not put in place of the document. The minutes kept during the search write what was left. If there are no minutes, the words "they took it" do not, on their own, build a list.
The general arrangement of a family visit is in the family visit article. Who may enter is in the visitors' list article. The distinction between an open and a closed visit is in the difference in visits article. If the three come together on the same day, the three papers are kept apart. One does not of itself change the prohibition of another.
A family visit
At a family visit, food, a gift, and clothing can be limited separately. The limit is read from that institution's announcement for that day. An item a child brought can enter the same check. The check being strict does not declare every item prohibited. If it was called prohibited, that needs to be written in the minutes or in the announcement.
The application does not stop at an abstract sentence of "they did not allow it". Which item was left, and in which type of visit, is written. If the announcement and the minutes conflict, the decision marks the place of the conflict. The mark does not of itself give the right of visit back. A period is not produced from here either.
Where the prohibition is read from
The prohibited list is read from the institution's announcement and from the minutes of the visit. An item closed to the family does not of itself spread to a lawyer's papers. The period is not written. The address of the office in Çankaya does not change the penal institution where the convicted person is held, or the competent authority. The institution is read from the name on the visit document.
Whether a telephone was taken into safekeeping is in that institution's practice. If the practice is not in the announcement, this article does not complete it. If a visit that was cut is to be tied to a disciplinary process, the tie is built from the sentence of the act in the minutes. If there is no sentence of the act, the outcome is not assumed.
A lawyer's papers
What comes to the front at a meeting with a lawyer is the check of the defence document. The check is not treating the content of the papers as non-existent. Which envelope was opened, and which paper was taken, should stand in the minutes. The debate on confidentiality stands in the meeting with a lawyer article. This record does not stand in for that confidentiality.
The petition writes the name of the papers that were taken. If there is no name, a sentence of "my file went" stays incomplete. If service gave notice of the visit day, that paper is kept as well. Service does not of itself widen the prohibited list.
The announcement and the search minutes
The list the institution posted, and the minutes kept during the search, may not write the same item. The list says a means of communication. The minutes write the name of a particular device. If the name was not written, what the device was is not completed later. If there is no list at all, the minutes do not, on their own, announce a general prohibition. Even so, if the minutes write an item that was left, that item is what is discussed. An item that is discussed is not treated as absent because it is not on the list. The two papers stand side by side.
Food brought to an open visit, and an envelope left at a closed visit, are not read by the same rule. Which type of visit was applied that day is read from the visit document. If the document says open, a prohibition of a closed visit is not treated as having been applied of itself. The reverse is also true. If an item that came with a child does not stand on a separate line from an adult's item, it is not written as if it were separate. An item that was not written separately is not turned into a general family prohibition.
If a disciplinary writing says the visit was cut, the sentence of the act is looked for. If there is no sentence of the act, the reason for the cut is not assumed. A period is not written before the reason is assumed either. The application asks for a copy of the announcement and the minutes together. If the copy that was asked for does not arrive, the absence does not mean the prohibition was widened. A prohibition that was not widened does not of itself close the visit itself either. A claim of closure stays tied to the sentence of the act in the minutes. A claim that does not stay tied does not stand in for the institution's list.
Conclusion
The prohibited list depends on the institution's announcement. There is no count from memory. A lawyer in Ankara separates the prohibited list from the institution's announcement. The family and the lawyer are not the same basket. The frame is on the criminal law page. There is no promise of an outcome.
The basis is the Code of Criminal Procedure, Law No. 5271.