Drug trafficking under Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) art. 188 is one of the catalogue offences listed in Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) art. 100(3)(a)(9), for which the law says “a ground for detention may be presumed”. Even so, pre-trial detention (tutuklama) still requires concrete evidence showing a strong suspicion of an offence and proportionality. An objection to a detention order can be filed within two weeks. An objection against an order of the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) is reviewed by a judge of the criminal court of first instance (asliye ceza hâkimi) (CMK art. 268).
What does “catalogue offence” mean?
Normally, a ground for detention, such as a suspicion of flight or a suspicion of tampering with evidence, must be shown for detention (CMK art. 100(2)). For catalogue offences, this ground may be presumed. However:
- The strong suspicion must be based on concrete evidence (CMK art. 100(1) and (3)).
- Detention must be proportionate to the importance of the case and the expected sentence. If it is disproportionate, no detention order can be given (CMK art. 100(1)).
- If judicial control (adli kontrol) is sufficient, detention should not be ordered.
For the offence of personal use (TCK art. 191), the mandatory postponement of the prosecution applies instead of a trial, so detention is not expected in practice.
How do you object to detention?
| Time limit | Two weeks from learning of the order (CMK art. 268(1)) |
| Where to file | With the criminal judgeship of peace that gave the order, by petition or by a statement to the court clerk |
| Who reviews it | Objections against detention and judicial control orders of a criminal judgeship of peace are reviewed by the judge of the criminal court of first instance within its jurisdiction (CMK art. 268(3)(b)) |
| Content | Absence of strong suspicion, proportionality, sufficiency of judicial control, personal circumstances (fixed address, job, family, health) |
Apart from an objection, the suspect or defendant can request release at any time (CMK art. 104). During the investigation, detention is reviewed by a judge at least once every 30 days (CMK art. 108(1)). During the prosecution, the court decides on this at every hearing and, where necessary, between hearings (CMK art. 108(3)).
Judicial control instead of detention
The judicial control obligations most often used in drug cases are (CMK art. 109):
- a ban on leaving the country,
- reporting to the police station at set intervals,
- not leaving one’s home (which in practice can be monitored with an electronic tag) or not going to certain places,
- complying with treatment or examination measures to overcome drug addiction.
Maximum detention periods
| Type of case | Total maximum period (CMK art. 102(1)–(2)) | Maximum period during the investigation (CMK art. 102(4)) |
|---|---|---|
| Cases before the assize court (ağır ceza), e.g. trafficking | 2 years; in compelling cases, extensions of at most 3 years in total on top | 1 year; for offences committed collectively, 1 year 6 months + 6 months |
| Cases outside the jurisdiction of the assize court | 1 year + 6 months | 6 months |
These periods are shorter for persons who committed the offence as a child (CMK art. 102(5)).
After acquittal or reversal
- When the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) reverses a judgment on the ground that the act was personal use rather than trafficking, it also considers the time spent in detention. If it sees fit, it orders release.
- A reversal does not always mean release. If the reason for the reversal is an incomplete investigation and the conditions for detention have not changed, a request for release may be refused.
- A person who was detained and later acquitted, or for whom a decision of non-prosecution was given, can claim compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage from the State (CMK art. 141).
Recent Court of Cassation decisions
- Court of Cassation 8th Criminal Chamber, 25.02.2026, E. 2025/10045, K. 2026/2713: A trafficking conviction was reversed on the ground that the act was possession for personal use. Taking into account the time spent in detention and the reason for the reversal, the defendant’s release was ordered. Decision text
- Court of Cassation 8th Criminal Chamber, 03.03.2026, E. 2025/11474, K. 2026/3118: A trafficking judgment concerning drugs within the personal-use range was reversed and the defendant’s release was ordered. Decision text
- Court of Cassation 10th Criminal Chamber, 16.12.2025, E. 2025/6442, K. 2025/13560: The judgment was reversed because it had not been investigated whether there was a properly issued judicial search order. However, since there was no change in the detention period and conditions, the request for release was refused. Decision text
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. For your specific situation, please seek advice from a lawyer.