SAYISAL (DİJİTAL) VERİLERDE YAKALAMA SONRASI ARAMA: AMERİKAN YÜKSEK MAHKEMESİNİN RILEY V. CALIFORNIA KARARI SONRASI AMERİKAN HUKUKUNUN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Amerikan Yüksek Mahkemesi 25 Haziran 2014 tarihinde vermiş olduğu Riley v.California kararında yakalama sonrası arama bakımından açık bir kural koymuştur.Söz konusu karara göre, yakalama sonrası arama öğretisinin kolluk kuvvetlerineyakalanan kişinin üzerindeki eşyaların yanı sıra yakın kontrolündeki eşyaları daarama yetkisi vermesine rağmen, kolluk kuvvetleri taşınabilir telefonlarda yakalamasonrası arama yapamayacaklardır. Mahkeme, öğretide ve içtihat hukukunda üzerindeuzlaşı olduğu şekilde yakalama sonrası aramanın amaçlarının kolluk kuvvetleriningüvenliğini sağlamak ve delillerin yok edilmesini önlemek olduğunu belirtmiştir.Taşınabilir telefonlarda depolanan sayısal veriler, Chimel kararında söz edilen riskleriortaya çıkarmazlar. Mahkeme söz konusu kararı verirken, taşınabilir telefonlarüzerinde depolanan sayısal verilerin niceliksel ve niteliksel bakımdan yakalanankişinin üzerinde olan diğer nesnelerden farklı olduğunu ifade etmiştir. Taşınabilirtelefonların milyonlarca sayfa belge, binlerce resim ve yüzlerce video depolayabilmesibazı bağlantılı mahremiyet sonuçlarını ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Öncelikle, taşınabilirtelefonlar birçok farklı bilgi türünü tek bir yerde toplamaktadır. İkinci olarak, taşınabilirtelefonların kapasiteleri bir tür bilgiyi öncekilerden farklı olarak kümülatif şekilde birarada taşımaya olanak sağlar. Son olarak taşınabilir telefonlar üzerindeki verilerin,yıllar öncesine kadar izi sürülebilir. Mahkeme; suçun önlenmesi ile özel hayatın gizliliğiarasındaki dengede, tercihini özel hayatın gizliliği yönünde kullanmıştır. Mahkemeninkararından Türk hukuku bakımından da çıkarılacak sonuçlar mevcuttur.

The Search for Digital Data Incident to Arrest: an Evaluation of American Law After Riley V. California Decision of the United States Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court has established a bright-line rule with regardto search-incident-to-arrest in the decision of Riley v. California bearing the dateof 25 th June 2014. According to the decision in question, although the search- incident-to-arrest doctrine generally allows a law enforcement officer to search itemson an arrestee s person as well as objects within an arrestee s immediate control, law enforcement officers will not be able to search mobile phones after arrest. TheSupreme Court, as it is agreed upon by the case-law and criminal-law upon, hasindicated that aims of search incident-to-arrest is to protect officers safety and toprevent the imminent destruction of evidence. The digital data stored on mobilephones do not constitute the risks mentioned in Chimel decision. While giving aruling the Supreme Court has expressed that cell phones differ in both a quantitativeand a qualitative sense from other objects that might be carried on an arrestee sperson. That mobile phones can store milions of pages of text, thousands of pictures,or hundreds of videos constitute several interrelated privacy consequences. Primarilya mobile phone collects many distinct types of information in one place. Secondly,the capacity of mobile phones allows to convey one type of information all togethercumulatively which is different from the previous ones. Lastly, the data on the mobilephones can be traced back to many years. The court has used its vote for privacy inthe balance between prevention of crime and privacy. From the decision of the Courtthere are consequences for the Turkish Law as well.

___

  • ABRAMOWITZ, Elkan – BOHRER, Barry A., “Expansion of Border Searches to Laptops, Electronic Items”, New York Law Journal, Vol. 239, No. 87, Tuesday, May 6, 2008. AKSOY, Şemsettin, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Uluslararası Yargı ve Yar- gıtay Kararları Işığında Önleme ve Koruma Tedbiri Olarak Arama, Ankara 2007. ALZAHABI, Rasha, “Should You Leave Your Laptop at Home When Traveling Abroad?: The Fourth Amendment and Border Searches of Laptop Compu- ters”, Indiana Law Review, Vol. 41, 2008. AYDIN, Murat, “Türk Hukukunda ve Amerikan Hukukunda Arama Kararı”, Tera- zi Hukuk Dergisi, S. 66, Şubat 2012 BAŞTÜRK, İhsan, “Bilgisayar Sistemleri ile Verilerinde Arama, Kopyalama ve Elkoyma”, Fasikül Aylık Hukuk Dergisi, Y.2, S. 9, Ağustos 2010. BERG, Terrence, “Practical Issues in Searching and Seizing Computers”, Tho- mas M. Cooley Journal of Practical and Clinical Law, Vol. 27, 2004-2005. BOZLAK, Ayhan, Anayasa Ek 4. Madde Kapsamında ABD Hukukunda Özel Ha- yatın Gizliliği Hakkının Korunması, İstanbul 2015. CASTRO, Alicia, Technology for Computer Forensics, A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate School of the Universitey of Colorado for the Degree of Master of Engineering Department of Computer Science, 2009. CENTEL, Nur – ZAFER, Hamide, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, Yenilenmiş ve Göz- den Geçirilmiş 10. Bası, İstanbul 2013. CLANCY, Thomas K., Cyber Crime and Digital Evidence: Materials and Cases, 2011. COLARUSSO, David, “Heads in the Cloud, A Coming Storm the Interplay of Cloud Computing, Encryption, and the Fifth Amenment’s Protection Against Self-Incrimination”, Boston University Science and Technology Law, Vol. 17, 2011. COLB, Sherry F., “Probabilities in Probable Cause and Beyond: Statistical Ver- sus Concrete Harms”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 73, September 2010. CORBETT, Patrick E., “The Future of the Fourth Amendment in a Digital Evi- dence Context: Where Would the Supreme Court Draw the Electronic Line at the International Border”, Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 81, Number 5, 2012. CORRADI, Sara M., “Be Reasonable! Limit Warrantless Smart Phone Searches to Gant’s Justificaiton for Searches Incident to Arrest”, Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 63, Issue 3, Spring 2013. COUILLARD, David A., “Defogging the Cloud: Applying Fourth Amendment Principles to Evolving Privacy Expectations in Cloud Computing, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 93, 2009. DEĞİRMENCİ, Olgun, Ceza Muhakemesinde Sayısal (Dijital) Delil, Seçkin Yayın- cılık, Ankara 2014. DRIPPS, Donald A., “Dearest Property’: Digital Evidence and the History of Pri- vate ‘Papers’ as Special Objects of Search and Seizure”, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 103, No. 1, 2013, s. 49-109. DUNN, Gibson, “U.S. Supreme Court Extends Fourth Amendment Protection to ‘Digital’ Searches for the First Time in Landmark Decision”, http://www.gib- sondunn.com/publications/pages/Supreme-Court-Extends-Fourth-Amend- ment-Protection-to-Digital-Searches-for-First-Time-in-Landmark-Decision. aspx, Erişim Tarihi: 10 Temmuz 2014. ERYILMAZ, M. Bedri, Türk ve İngiliz Hukukunda ve Uygulamasında Durdurma ve Arama, Ankara 2003. ERYILMAZ, Mesut Bedri, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku Dersleri, Ankara 2012. FISHMAN, Clifford S., “Searching Cell Phones After Arrest: Exceptions to the Warrant and Probable Cause Requirements”, Rutgers Law Review, Vol.:65:4, 2013. FOLEY, Sean, “The Newly Murky World of Searches Incident to Lawful Arrest: Why the Gant Restrictions Should Aplly to All Searches Incident to Arrest”, Kansas Law Review, Vol. 61, 2012, s. 753 – 784. FONTECCHIO, Ari B., “Suspicionless Laptop Searches Under The Border Sear- ch Doctrine: The Fourth Amendment Exception That Swallows Your Laptop”, Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2009. FRAENKEL, Osmond K., “Concerning Searches and Seizures”, Harvard Law Re- view, Vol. 34, 1921. GERSHOWITZ, Adam M., “Password Protected? Can a Password Save Your Cell Phone from a Search Incident to Arrest?”, Iowa Law Review, Vol. 96, 2011. GERSHOWITZ, Adam M., “The iPhone Meets the Fourth Amendment”, UCLA Law Review, vol. 27, 2008. GISSEL, Richard, “Search Incident to Arrest of Personal Electronic Devices”, for the Defense, Vol. 18, Issue 4. GÜLŞEN, Recep, “Kolluk Görevlileri Tarafından, İşlenen Suç Dolayısıyla Arama Kararı veya Emri Gerekmeden Kendiliğinden Arama Yapılabilen Haller”, Fasikül Dergisi, Ağustos 2010, S. 9. GOTTLIEB, David J., “The Fourth Amendment and the Digital Revolution”, Prof. Dr.Feridun Yenisey’e Armağan, Beta Yayımcılık, C. I, Ankara 2014. HALL, Daniel E., Criminal Law and Procedure, Sixth Edition, USA 2012. HOLLEY, Benjamin, “Digitizing the Fourth Amendment: Limiting the Private Search Exception in Computer Investigations”,Virginia Law Review, Vol. 96, 2010. HOLLEY, Benjamin, “Digitizing the Fourth Amendment: Limiting the Private Search Exception in Computer Investigations”, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 96, 2010. İ NCEOĞLU, Sibel, “ABD Anayasa Hukukunda Mahremiyet Hakkı”, İnsan Hakları Yıllığı, C.Ç 19-20, 1997-1998. JAMES, Carolyn, “Balancing Interests at the Border: Protecting Our Nation and Our Privacy in Border Searches of Electronic Devices”, Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, Vol. 27, Issue 1. JULIE, Richard S., “High – Tech Surveillance Tools and the Fourth Amendment: Reasonable Exceptations of Privacy in the Technological Age”, American Crimi- nal Law Review, Vol. 37, 2000. KERR, Orin S., “Foreword: Accounting for Technological Change”, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2013. KERR, Orin S., “Vagueness Challenges to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 94, 2010. KINPORTS, Kit, “Diminishing Probable Cause and Minimalist Searches”, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 6, 2009. KIZILKAYA, Ezgi, “Türk Hukuku ve Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta Arama, Elkoyma ve Gözaltı”, TBB Dergisi, 2010 (89). KNOTT, Jana L., “Is There an App for That? Reexamining the Doctrine of Se- arch Incident to Lawful Arrest in the Context of Cell Phones”, Oklahama City University Law Review, Vol. 35, 2010. KUNTER, Nurullah – YENİSEY, Feridun – NUHOĞLU, Ayşe, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 18. Bası, İstanbul 2010. LAMPARELLO, Adam –MacLEAN, Charles, “Back to the Future: Returning to Reasonableness and Particulartiy Under the Fourth Amendment”, Iowa Law Review Bulletin, Vol. 99, 2014, s. 101 – 114. LEIBMAN, Alain, “Computer Search and Seizure Under the Fourth Amend- ment: The Dilemma of Applying Old – Age Principles to New – Age Techno- logy”, The Bureau of National Affairs, 2011. LUNDBERG, J.C., “When is a Phone a Computer”, Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts, Vol. 8, Issue 4, Winter 2013. McGREGOR, Nathan K., The Weak Protection of Strong Encryption: Passwords, Privacy, and Fifth Amendment Privilege, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertain- ment and Technology Law, Vol. 12, 2010. O’CONNOR, Evan, “The Search for a Limited Search: The First Circuit Denies the Search of Cell Phones Incident to Arrest in United States v. Wurie”, Boston College Law Review, Vol. 55: E. Supp., 2014, s. 59 – 73. O’LEARY, Kaitlyn R., “What the Founders Did Not See Coming: The Fourth Amendment, Digital Evidence, and the Plain View Doctrine”, Suffolk University Law Review, Vol. XLVI, 2013. ORSO, Matthew E., “Cellular Phones, Warrantless Searches, and the New Frontier of Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence”, Santa Clara Law Review, Vol. 50, Number 1, 2010. OXTON, Chelsea, “The Search Incident to Arrest Exception Plays Catch Up: Why Police May No Longer Search Cell Phones Incident to Arrest Without a Warrant”, Creighton Law Review, Vol. 43, 2010. ÖZBEK, Veli Özer – KANBUR, Mehmet Nihat – DOĞAN, Koray – BACAKSIZ, Pınar – TEPE, İlker, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, Güncellenmiş ve Geliştirilmiş 5. Baskı, Ankara Ekim 2013. ÖZBEK, Veli Özer, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Koruma Tedbiri Olarak Ara- ma, Ankara 1999. ÖZTÜRK, Bahri – TEZCAN, Durmuş – ERDEM, Mustafa Ruhan – SIRMA, Özge – SAYGILAR KIRIT, Yasemin F. – ÖZAYDIN, Özdem – ALAN AKCAN, Esra – ERDEN, Efser, Nazari ve Uygulamalı Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku Ders Kitabı, Güncellen- miş 6. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara 2013. ÖZTÜRK, Bahri – KAZANCI, Behiye Eker – GÜLEÇ, Sesim Soyer, Ceza Muhake- mesi Hukukunda Koruma Tedbirleri, Ankara 2013. PENNY, Steven, “Searches of Digital Devices Incident to Arrest: R v Fearon”, Constitutional Froum Constitutionnel, Vol. 23, Nu. 2, 2014. RADOS, Susan A., “United States v. Payton: Redefining the Reasonableness Standard for Computer Searches and Seizures”, Golden Gate University Law Review, Vol. 40, 2010. ROSE, Robert G., “The ‘Search-Incident-to-Arrest [But Prior-to-Securement] Doctrine: An Outline of the Past, Present and Future”, Regent University Law Review, Vol. 23, 2011, s. 425 – 446. SCHWARTZ, Paul M., “German and U.S. Telecommunicatons Privacy Law: Legal Regulation of Domestic Law Enforcement Surveillance”, Hastings Law Jour- nal, Vol. 54, April 2003. SHAH, Monica R., “The Case for a Statutory Suppression Remedy to Regulate Illegal Private Party Searches in Cyberspace”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 105, 2005. SMITH, Michael, “Survey, The Fourth Amendment, Password-Protected Com- puter Files and Third Party Consent Searches: The Tenth Circuit Broadens the Scope of Warrantless Searches, Denver University Law Review, Vol. 85, 2008. SOLOVE, Daniel J., “Fourth Amendment Codification and Professor Kerr’s Misguided Call for Judicial Deference”, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 2, 2005. STARBUCK, Jackie L., “Redefining Searches Incident to Arrest: Gant’s Effect on Chimel”, Penn State Law Review, Vol. 116, Number 4. STEWART, Ben E., “Cell Phone Searches Incident to Arrest: A New Standart Based on Arizona v. Gant”, Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 99, 2010 – 2011, s. 579 – 600. Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 13-132 and 13-212, David Leon Ri- ley, Petitioner v. Caliornia on writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Cali- fornia, Fourth Appellate District, Division One (13-132), United States, Petito- ner v. Brima Wurie, on writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (13-212), Opinion of the Court, 573 U.S. _ (2014), s. 1-28. Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 13-132 and 13-212, David Leon Ri- ley, Petitioner v. Caliornia on writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Cali- fornia, Fourth Appellate District, Division One (13-132), United States, Petito- ner v. Brima Wurie, on writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (13-212), Opinion of Alito J., 573 U.S. _ (2014), s. 1 – 6. SWINGLE, H. Morley, “Smartphone Searches Incident to Arrest”, Journal of Missouri Bar, January-February 2012. ŞAHİN, İlyas, “ABD Federal Mahkemelerinin Sınırlarda Bilgisayar Aramaları- na İlişkin Kararları ve Değerlendirmeler”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, S. 89, 2010. ŞAHİN, İlyas, “ABD Hukukunda Mahkeme Kararları Işığında Hükümlü, Tutuklu, Şartla Salıverme ve Adli Kontrole Tabi Kişilerle İlgili Aramalar”, TAAD, Y. 4, S. 14, Temmuz 2013. ŞAHİN, Cumhur, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku – I, Gözden Geçirilmiş ve Güncel- lenmiş 5. Baskı, Ankara 2014. TATICCHI, Mark, “Redefining Possessory Interests: Perfect Copies of Informa- tion as Fourth Amendment Seizures”, The George Washington Law Review, Vol. 78, 2010. THERIAULT, Alexis P., “Constitutional Law – Warrants Required to Search Cell Phones Seized Incident to Arrest – State v. Smith, 920 N.E. 2 d 949 (2009)”, Suffolk University Law Review, Vol. XLIV, 2011. TREPEL, Samantha, “Digital Searches, General Warrants, and the Case for the Courts”, Yale Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 10, 2007. ÜNVER, Yener – HAKERİ, Hakan, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 1. Cilt, 8. Baskı, Ankara 2013, s. 535. ÜNVER, Yener – HAKERİ, Hakan, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 1. Cilt, Adalet Ya- yınevi, Ankara 2013. WAHRER, Benjamin, “What is the Scope of Searches of Cell Phones Incident to Arrest? United States v. Wurie and the Return of Chimel”, Maine Law Review, Vol. 66:2, 2014. WEMPE, Kevin, “United States v. Flores-Lopez: Protecting Privacy Rights in Cell Phone Searches Incident to Arrest”, Kansas Law Review, Vol. 62, 2013. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 03 Temmuz 2014.