22.05.2026 12:10
The reasoned decision was announced regarding police officer H.K., who was sentenced to 7 years and 6 months in prison for sexually assaulting A.A. in a house in Ankara after claiming there was a drug report. The court stated that the victim's account was corroborated by witness statements and camera footage, and that the defendant committed the sexual assault by leveraging the influence provided by his public duty.
The reasoned decision has been announced regarding police officer H.K., who was sentenced to 7 years and 6 months for "simple sexual assault" and 10 months for "violation of domicile integrity" for entering a house in Ankara under the pretense of a "drug tip" and sexually assaulting A.A.
The 54th Criminal Court of First Instance in Ankara stated that the defendant abused the authority provided by his public office, noting that the victim's account was corroborated by witness statements, camera footage, and other evidence in the case file.
ENTERED THE HOUSE WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT
The court wrote its reasoned decision regarding police officer H.K., who was released pending trial at the hearing on April 22, considering the time he had already spent in detention. The reasoned decision stated that on the day of the incident, police officer H.K. and his partner went to A.A.'s apartment in response to a noise complaint about loud music, and the defendant entered the house despite not having a search warrant. The court considered that, contrary to the defendant's defense that "the victim invited me into the house and said there were people inside who were scaring her," he did not notify his superiors or the prosecutor's office and did not call neighbors, given the nature of the incident.
TOOK REFUGE WITH NEIGHBORS IN A STATE OF PANIC
In its reasoned decision, the court found A.A.'s account to be "sincere, consistent, and compatible with other evidence in the case file." The decision cited the victim's immediate refuge with neighbors in a state of panic, her consistent accounts to different individuals, and the alignment of witness testimonies as grounds for the conviction.
"THE POLICE OFFICER TRIED TO ASSAULT ME"
The court assessed that A.A., who knocked on neighbors' doors immediately after the incident, made spontaneous statements such as "The police officer tried to sexually assault me," "He touched me," "He exposed his genitals," and "Don't give me to him," which weakened the possibility of a fabricated accusation.
The decision emphasized that the victim's failure to actively resist due to fear during the incident does not mean the crime did not occur. The court found credible A.A.'s account that she feared the defendant's authority as a police officer and thought she could be harmed, therefore "trying to gain the defendant's trust in order to escape." The court noted that the victim's inability to react and her apparent compliance with the defendant's demands for a time cannot be considered "consent."
"NUMEROUS CONTRADICTIONS IN THE POLICE OFFICER'S STATEMENT"
The court highlighted numerous contradictions in police officer H.K.'s defense. The decision stated that in his initial statement to the police, the defendant claimed A.A. "offered him sexual intercourse," hugged his neck, and threatened him, but he denied most of these statements in court.
The court also found it unconvincing that the defendant claimed he did not have his phone or radio with him during the incident. The reasoned decision noted that it would be against the normal course of events for a police officer to leave communication devices in the vehicle while responding to a call at night.
The court also found the defense's claim that the defendant's partner left the scene by leaving him alone in the house to be contrary to duty regulations. The decision stated, "It was not considered possible for the other police officer to leave police officer H.K. at the victim's house and depart the scene in the patrol vehicle."
CAMERA FOOTAGE SUPPORTS THE VICTIM'S ACCOUNT
The court stated that camera footage also supported the victim's account. The footage showed A.A. leaving the apartment building in a panic, with the defendant following her and staying by her side despite her objections.
Neighbor witness statements were also influential in the conviction. One witness reported that when A.A. came to their door, she said, "This is not a cop, he touched me, he showed me his genitals," while another witness described the victim seeking help with the words, "Don't... me."
The court assessed that although A.A. was under the influence of alcohol during the incident, she expressed herself clearly and coherently according to witness accounts, and her immediate reactions were consistent with the trauma she experienced.
"ABUSED THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY PUBLIC OFFICE"
The court also emphasized that the defendant's police identity was a decisive factor in the incident. The decision stated that A.A. opened the door because they were police officers, allowed a search when told there was a drug tip, and the defendant used this authority as a means of pressure on the victim.
Therefore, the court applied Article 102/3-b of the Turkish Penal Code for the sexual assault crime and decided to increase the sentence on the grounds that "the authority provided by public office was abused."