1. Criteria for Arrest in Drug Offenses

According to judicial decisions and relevant legislation (CMK Article 100 et seq.), for an arrest warrant to be issued in drug offenses, there must fundamentally be “concrete evidence demonstrating the existence of strong suspicion of crime” and a “reason for arrest.” The crime of manufacturing and trading narcotic or stimulant substances (TCK Article 188) is one of the catalog crimes covered by Article 100/3-a-8 of Law No. 5271 on the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK). This indicates that in the presence of strong suspicious reasons that the crime has been committed, the reason for arrest can be legally presumed to exist.

The main criteria emphasized in the decisions are:

Strong Suspicion of Crime and Concrete Evidence: For arrest, there must be strong indications that the crime has been committed. Courts consider communication interception records (tapes), physical surveillance records, search and seizure records, drug seizure and custody records, expert reports, and suspect/defendant statements as concrete evidence demonstrating strong suspicion of crime.

Nature and Character of the Crime: The lower and upper limits of the penalty in law for the committed crime, its impact on society, and its seriousness are taken into consideration.

Suspicion of Flight and Tampering with Evidence: The high amount of the likely penalty to be given to the defendant is considered a fact giving rise to the suspicion of flight. Furthermore, the fact that evidence has not yet been fully collected, and the possibility of destroying, concealing, or altering evidence, also constitute grounds for arrest.

Proportionality and Inadequacy of Judicial Control: The pre-trial detention measure must be proportionate to its intended purpose, and a conviction must be formed that the judicial control measures (e.g., signature requirement, travel ban abroad) stipulated in Article 109 of the CCP will be insufficient at this stage.

International Standards: Some Regional Court of Appeal decisions state that the continuation of pre-trial detention must comply with the conditions in Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

2. Appeal Process and Procedure Against a Detention Order

An appeal is available against pre-trial detention orders or decisions to continue pre-trial detention in the context of drug offenses. The appeal process is based on the following principles:

Appeal Period: An appeal must be filed within 7 days from the pronouncement (reading in front of the parties) or notification of the decision.

Appellate Authorities:

Against decisions on the continuation of pre-trial detention rendered by the Criminal Chambers of the Regional Court of Appeals (BAM), an appeal is made to the chamber immediately following the one that rendered the decision (e.g., to the 4th Criminal Chamber against a decision of the 3rd Criminal Chamber).

Against decisions rendered by Criminal Judgeships of Peace, an appeal can be made to a higher authority (Court of First Instance or High Criminal Court).

Method of Appeal: An appeal is made by submitting a petition to the court that rendered the decision or by making a statement to the court clerk to be recorded in the minutes. Detainees can also exercise their right to appeal by making a statement or submitting a petition to the director of the penal institution (CCP Article 263).

Review Procedure: As a rule, the objection review is conducted without a hearing, based on the file. However, if the court deems it necessary, it may hear the public prosecutor, defense counsel, or attorney. The Constitutional Court does not consider the review of objections without a hearing to be a violation of rights on its own.

3. Secondary Sources and General Principles

In light of secondary information sources and general judicial practices, the following points are important:

Detention Periods: In cases falling under the jurisdiction of the high criminal court, the detention period is a maximum of 2 years. It can be extended with justification in mandatory circumstances; however, this period cannot exceed 5 years in total. If the reasonable period is exceeded, a right to compensation may arise in accordance with Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK).

Requirement for Justification: Even in catalog crimes, detention orders must be justified with concrete facts demonstrating strong suspicion of crime, reasons for detention, and the proportionality of the measure. The Constitutional Court can find a violation of rights in detention orders issued without concrete evidence or based solely on abstract justifications (such as the crime being a catalog crime).

Judicial Control Alternative: It is emphasized that when a detention order is issued, the reasons why judicial control provisions would be insufficient must be clearly stated in the decision.

Conclusion: Detention in drug offenses is ordered based on strong suspicion of crime, the presumption of a catalog crime, suspicion of flight, and proportionality criteria. It is possible to object to these decisions within 7 days to the relevant judicial authority. A recommendation from an article by Lawyer Meryem Günay.

4. Why is Expert Criminal Lawyer Support Necessary in Drug Crimes?

Drug or stimulant crimes are among the criminal proceedings where the defense must be conducted with the most technical expertise, due to both the severity of the penalties and the frequent application of pre-trial detention. Especially in cases involving accusations of manufacturing and trafficking under TCK Article 188, a single procedural error can result in long-term pre-trial detention and heavy prison sentences.

For this reason, expert criminal lawyer support is of vital importance in drug crimes.

Technical Nature of the Detention and Objection Process

In objections lodged against detention orders,

Whether the strong suspicion of crime is truly based on concrete evidence,

Whether actual control is confused with communication records (HTS, tape),

Whether the seized substance should be evaluated as for personal use or trafficking,

Whether there is a justification for why judicial control is deemed insufficient,

Such matters must be put forward in conjunction with the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and the ECHR. These evaluations are technical and complex for individuals without practice in criminal proceedings.

Legality of Evidence and Defense Strategy

The most common problems encountered in drug cases are as follows:

The search warrant being procedurally unlawful,

Reports and confidential witness statements being used as sole evidence,

Phone messages being interpreted out of context,

Wrong classification of the crime based on the amount of seized substance.

An expert criminal lawyer can identify such legal irregularities at an early stage and build an effective defense towards the termination of detention, its conversion to judicial control, or acquittal.

Importance of Local Practices and Court Procedures

Practices in drug offenses;

can even differ among the Magistrate Criminal Courts and High Criminal Courts operating in regions such as Istanbul (Anatolian – European Side), Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Gebze, Çayırova.
Therefore, working with a lawyer who knows the judicial district where the case is heard and local judicial practices provides a significant advantage in the arrest and objection process.

Professional Criminal Defense with 2M Law Office

2M Law Office (Tuzla / Istanbul) offers specialized defense services in criminal proceedings, especially concerning drug and stimulant offenses, including; Arrest and detention objections, judicial control requests, defenses regarding the distinction between TPC Article 188 – Article 191, effective repentance applications, and Constitutional Court and ECHR applications.

In drug offenses, **qualified legal support** obtained at an early stage can often fundamentally alter the course of the case, preventing irreparable harm in terms of the **right to liberty**, **fair trial**, and the **principle of proportionality**.