In short
A claim of unlawful evidence is not carried into the file without writing which act rests on which document. Without the act and the document standing side by side, the sentence is not a request for assessment. The claim being written does not mean the evidence will fall from the file of itself. The signature box in the statement minutes is not built in this article. The assessment stays with the authority that holds the file in its hand.
Which act the claim is tied to
The claim does not begin with an abstract label of irregularity. First the act is named. The act seen in the file may be a search, a seizure, the interception of communications, the taking of a statement, or the preparation of a report. The name is the name of the act seen in the file. An act that is not in the file is not added among these names. If there is more than one act in the same file, each is written separately with its own document. Melting the two into a single sentence closes which one is being discussed.
The name of the act is not mixed with the name of the result. An act having been carried out is not a ready answer on whether the product of that act will be taken as the basis of the judgment. The answer is built by the authority after the paper the act rests on is read. This article does not give that answer in advance. If the place where the act was carried out is written in the minutes, the place is carried from that line. If the place line is empty, the address is not filled with a street that is remembered. The name of the unit that carried out the act is also read from the heading. If there is no heading, a unit is not chosen.
If the search minutes refer to a decision number, the reference is written in the state it has in the minutes. If the reference line is empty, a number is not added as if a decision existed. The list of the goods taken during the seizure does not change the name of the search act. The list is a line of the seizure document. Even if the two acts were carried out on the same day, they stand in the petition under two separate names. If the day is written in the document as a single date, the date is copied. If there is no date, a common day is not invented.
Without a document the sentence is not carried
Each act is tied to a document. Minutes for a search, the seizure minutes and, if there is one, the examination decision for a seizure, the interception decision for an interception, the statement minutes for a statement, the report for an expert opinion. If the document is not in the file, it is said that it is not there. The absence is not filled with the content of a paper that is assumed to exist. If a copy of the document was not given to the person, the claim is not built on a line that was not seen. The copy is asked from the authority that holds the file. Before the copy comes, the content is not guessed.
If the document exists, the claim shows which line of the document it rests on. Saying the decision is incomplete without showing the line does not put before the authority where the incompleteness is. If the decision belongs to another person, another place, or another line, this difference is shown by writing the two texts side by side. Showing the difference is not a promise that the evidence will fall. A later record said to have come out of one document is not tied to the same pair of itself, without the later record's own paper being shown. If the later paper is not there, it is said that it is not there. Whether the tie will be built is the work of the authority after the two documents are read side by side.
Erasing the record, destroying the document, or doing away with the evidence is not the subject of this text. The text recounts how the act in hand is tied, in the petition, to the document in hand. Without the tie being built, a method of exclusion is not listed. Asking that the document be taken out of the file does not stand in for this tie either. What is asked is that whether the pair will be taken as the basis of the judgment be discussed.
The assessment does not write the judgment of itself
The statute carries the principle that the judgment cannot rest on evidence obtained unlawfully. The principle does not mean the concrete document is void of itself. The authority assesses the act that was put forward and the supporting document. The assessment is not announced in this article in the form of an acquittal, a conviction, or the evidence being set aside. The principle does not leave every record in the file outside the subject at the same time either. Without writing which pair is being discussed, it is not said that the whole file is unlawful.
The claim being passed into the petition and the authority accepting it are not the same step. The petition writes the request. The decision is the work of the authority. The question of how it is excluded is not turned into a list of methods in this text. What is written is with which pair of act and document the claim will be built. If the authority does not find the claim in place, this not finding it does not mean the petition was never written. The not finding it stands in the decision the authority wrote. While that decision is not there, the claim is not treated as rejected.
The same pair is written to the prosecution office's number if the file stands at the prosecution office, and to the court's principal number in the prosecution before the court. Which authority the file is at determines the addressee of the petition. The authority is read from the unit line on the document. If there is no line, the authority is not guessed. A guess does not have the claim treated as built. In Ankara the addressee is the prosecution office or the court in the heading of the document. The name of another district does not change this heading.
The signature line of the statement minutes is not built here
Whether or not to sign the statement minutes is a separate article: signing the police minutes. This text does not answer that question again. Here the minutes, if they exist, are one of the documents the claim rests on. The claim writes which sentence of the minutes was tied to which act. The signature box is not recounted in this article. If the signature place is empty in the minutes, the gap is shown as it is, as the supporting line of the claim. The gap is not filled as if a signature existed. If there is a signature, the signature itself does not build of itself that the act was lawful either. Lawfulness is discussed by reading the act document and the sentence of the minutes side by side.
How a police statement is weighed in the file is under the evidential value of a police statement. The text kept at the prosecution office is under prosecution statement minutes. The preparation before a statement stands in the article before giving a statement. The rights in police custody stay under rights in police custody. These records are not a copy of the pair of act and document. A statement sentence does not complete the missing line of the search minutes. The search minutes do not stand in for the text of the statement either.
The two columns that stand side by side in the petition
The readable state of the petition is like two columns. On one side the name and the date of the act, so far as they are read from the document. On the other side the name of the supporting document and the line that is discussed. If the date is not in the document, the column is left empty. The gap is not filled with an approximate day. If the page number of the document is read, the number is written. If it is not read, it is said that there is no page number. The quotation is not turned into a new account of events longer than the sentence that is discussed.
The third sentence says the assessment that is asked. It is asked that whether this pair will be taken as the basis of the judgment be discussed. The sentence does not write that the result was accepted. If there is more than one pair, each pair becomes a separate paragraph. Reducing the paragraphs to a single sentence that all the evidence is unlawful erases the columns. The same pair is not written both to the investigation number and to the court's principal number at once, while the file is not at that stage. The stage is read from the heading of the papers in hand. If the heading has changed, the new heading is taken as the basis. The old number is not put in the place of the new heading.
If the signature under the act minutes carries the name of the person who carried out the act, the name is written from that line. If the name is not read, the title line is read. If there is no title either, a name is not invented. The name of a person who entered the minutes as a witness is not a party to the act. That name does not stand in for the claim that the act was unlawful. The witness's name is written if it is written in the minutes that he was present during the act, and if the claim is tied to this presence. If there is no tie, the witness list does not fill the missing line of the act document.
If there are two sets of minutes of the same act, the two are not counted as a single document. The petition writes the decision first, then whether the minutes refer to the decision. If there is no reference, it is said that there is none. If the hour in the minutes and the hour in the decision are different, the difference is shown. The difference is not closed by rounding the hour. If the file number is not read in the corner, it is left as not being read. If the number that is read conflicts with the principal number of the petition, the two numbers stand on separate lines. The conflict does not have the claim treated as built. If there is a different line in the photocopy of the document and in the original, the petition writes the difference. If the original is not in the file, the photocopy is not named as the original. A faint line on the photocopy is carried by stating that it is faint. The underneath of a faint line is not completed from another paper.
The frame is on the criminal law page.
Conclusion
The claim is not carried without the act and the document being written. The pair that is written does not mean the evidence will fall of itself. A later record is not tied to the same pair without its own paper. There is no building of the signature line in this text. The assessment is at the authority where the file is. The steps of exclusion are not listed. The basis is the text of the Criminal Procedure Code numbered 5271.