Detection and Listening of Communication for Prevention Purposes is the listening and recording of telephone or similar telecommunications tools and mutual conversations of people for intelligence purposes.
In cases where the judge’s decision or delay is inconvenient, by written order of the authorized administrative authority, communication via telecommunications can be detected, listened to; signal information can be evaluated, recorded. A written order issued in cases where it is inconvenient to delay is submitted to the approval of the authorized and authorized judge within 24 hours. The judge makes his decision no later than 24 hours. If the period has expired or the judge decides otherwise, the measure is eliminated. In this case, the records related to the content of the listening will be destroyed no later than 10 days; this situation is determined by a record and the record is kept for submission to the audit. If the applied measure expires, the records related to the content of the eavesdropping will be destroyed no later than ten days. This situation is determined by a record and the record is kept for submission at the audit. The decision and the written order will contain the identity of the person to whom the measure will be applied, the type of communication tool, the phone numbers used or those that can be determined from the code that allows you to determine the communication connection, as well as the type, scope and duration of the measure and the reasons that make it necessary to apply for the measure.
Forensic Eavesdropping is the listening and recording of telephone or similar telecommunications tools and mutual conversations of people due to obtaining evidence during the investigation or prosecution phase due to a crime.
The possibility of interfering with a person’s freedom of communication has been limited by envisaging the supervision of communication as a secondary measure that comes after the general collection of evidence. For this measure, it is subject to the prerequisite that a criminal investigation and prosecution be conducted for a crime and that the suspect or defendant’s communication be monitored in this context. The fact that it contains strong reasons for suspicion, the possibility of obtaining evidence in another way is not possible, and the verb subject to wiretapping and recording of telephone conversations; CMK md. It is listed as one of the crimes listed in 135/6. The judge decides on the detection of eavesdropping and communication. In the judge’s decision, the type of the committed crime, the identity of the person to whom the measure will be applied, the code that allows determining the contact link, the nature, content and duration of the measure are specified. In cases where delay is inconvenient, the Public Prosecutor can issue a wiretap and detection order. The Public Prosecutor immediately submits the decision he has made to the approval of the judge and the judge makes his decision no later than 24 hours. If the period expires or the judge decides otherwise, the measure is immediately lifted by the public prosecutor. If the judge does not find it appropriate and does not approve the decision of the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s office may appeal against this decision. In case of destruction of records related to detection and eavesdropping, the Prosecutor General’s Office shall provide written information to the relevant person about the reason, scope, duration and outcome of the measure no later than 15 days after the end of the investigation phase. An injunction can be issued for a maximum of 3 months. The period can be extended one-time and last for a total of 6 months.
Cases Where Wiretapping Violates the Freedom of Communication
National Security, Public Order, Crime Prevention, general health or morals or the protection of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others relating to one or more duly given of the reasons for the judge’s decision without; for these reasons also where delay is prejudicial, again, a written order from the authority which has been authorized by law to be placed; in case of violation of the privacy of communication, and blocking.
Freedom of communication should be interfered with by the public authority outside the purpose of national security, public safety, material well-being of the country, protection of life and order, prevention of crime, protection of health or morality or the rights and freedoms of others.
Freedom of communication as a protection measure CMK 135. As a protected legal benefit, regulated in Article 132 of the Turkish Commercial Code. it is regulated in the article. The cases regulated as violations in these articles are as follows;
-Violation of the confidentiality of communication between persons or this violation of privacy occurs by recording the contents of communications dec
-Decriminalization of the content of communications between persons in violation of the law.
Public disclosure of the content of communications with him without the consent of the other party.
-Publication of the content of dec between persons by means of the press and publication.
Wiretapping from the Point of View of the Defender
As a result of the defense immunity of the defender, the right of the suspect and the defendant to interview and correspond without supervision and monitoring (CMK Article 154), supervision of the suspect and his communication with the accused is prohibited. In this case, the defender’s office, residence and means of telecommunications in the settlement cannot be listened to. There is no ban on eavesdropping in terms of telecommunications tools located outside these places, but there is no ban in terms of mobile phones. However, due to the fact that the defense counsel also has the right to abstain from testifying, despite the absence of a ban, the communication of the suspect / defendant and the defense counsel will not be recorded in accordance with CMK 135/2.
