Stopping and its Limits

Stopping and its Limits
If the officer thinks that by resorting to the door of arrest, he will reduce the provisions of the law, and violate the people and the sanctities of the people and the prohibitions of the people what he wants? !!! This is an invalid illusion, as the suspension is a procedure that a public authority man performs in order to investigate crimes and uncover their perpetrators. Therefore, the suspicion is required for the person to place himself under suspicion, suspicion and suspicion, and the Court of Cassation knew him associated with these conditions in many of its provisions, and it said: It is a procedure carried out by a man of public authority for the sake of investigating crimes and revealing their perpetrators, justified by suspicion justified by circumstances, which is permissible for a man of public authority if a person voluntarily and voluntarily placed himself in a position of suspicion and suspicions, and this situation predicts a necessity that requires the intervention of the arrested to investigate and reveal his truth. The decision regarding the justification for the suspension or its failure is among the matters that are independent in the discretion of the subject judge without penalty as long as his conclusion is justified.
Cassation 6/15/1976 - S.27 - 4 - 33
Cassation 01/21/1974 - S15 - 11 - 48
Cassation 1/20/1974 - S. 22-1889 - 788
Cassation 10/20/1969 - Q20 - 212-1078
Cassation 3/25/1968 - S. 19 - 71 - 371
Cassation 12/2/1963 - S 14 - 158 - 873
The Court of Cassation also ruled that:
"Stopping legally is nothing more than suspending a person who has put himself in suspicion in order to get to know his personality, and it is conditional that his procedures do not include a material exposure to the investigator who may be a violation of his personal freedom or an assault on it."
Cassation 1/13/1964 - S15-11-52
Therefore, the "arrest" is not a blind authority granted to a man of law enforcement that permits him to violate people and sign their investigations - and in this, the Court of Cassation said in one of its rulings: -
 "The suspension must be advised that it has manifestations that justify it, as it requires that the accused must have placed himself the places of suspicion and suspicion, which necessitates the intervention of the arrested person to reveal the truth of his matter. His order and his arrest, because what he came to does not contradict the nature of things, and then if one of the officers stopped him, grabbed him and opened his hand, it is an arrest that has no basis in the law. "
Cassation 4/10/1962 - pp. 13 - 85 - 339
In a warmer ruling, the Court of Cassation says:
 The arrest is an action that cannot be taken without fulfilling its condition, which is that the person voluntarily places himself in a position of suspicion or apparent suspicion that requires the intervention of a man of authority to reveal the truth of his matter, while the accused and his colleagues did not do anything that would arouse the suspicion of the men of the authority who were suspicious just because his bag had previously been seized containing Ammunition bombed in the same way, so he allowed himself to stop the suspects, grabbed one of them, and took him while he was holding him to a space location, for this is a clear arrest that has no justification and no basis in law.
Revocation 5/30/1960 - S - 11 - 96 - 505
In another ruling, we say the Court of Cassation: -
 "What the informants read about the picture presented by the verdict of stopping the accused after getting off the train, seizing him and taking him on this case to the police station for what would disrupt his personal freedom, for it is the arrest in the legal sense that Article 34 did not permit criminal procedures except for the judicial officers with the stipulated conditions. If the royal police who arrested the accused were not from the judicial police, and the criminal laws did not know the suspicion of anyone without suspicion and the buyers, and the accused was not among them, then what does the ruling say that what happened to the accused is not an arrest but rather a mere arrest is not valid In the law, it does not lead to a justification for the arrest of the accused, and this arrest has taken place void
Revolving 1/20/1959 - S10-16-60
In another ruling, the Court of Cassation says: -
 For appeals, conditions must be met before taking this action, which is that the person voluntarily puts himself in the place of suspicion and suspicion, and that this situation discloses an image that requires the arrestee's intervention to reveal his truth, and then when the informant suspects the accused’s matter merely because he is corrupted and is He is walking on the way, and it is an act that does not contradict the nature of things and does not lead to the manifestations required by the suspension, so stopping in this way is an arrest that is not based on a basis in the law, it is invalid.
Cassation 12/30/1957 - S. 8: 283-998
And the officer, who edited this case's paper, did not cite a single reason "nor one", not to satisfy the accused. He did not mention a single sign of confusion
The Court of Cassation says in a judgment from the eyes of its judges: -
2- It is decided that the invalidity of the arrest due to the lack of legitimacy of it is to not rely in the conviction on any evidence that may be based on it, or derived from it - and to determine the link between the invalid arrest and the evidence on which the accusation authority is based, of whatever type of objective issues In which the judge decides the matter without being punished as long as the evidence for it is acceptable and acceptable, and since the heroes of the arrest of the contested against him must necessarily waste every evidence revealed as a result of the invalid arrest and lack of credibility in his conviction, and therefore it is not permissible to rely on the presence of crumbs without From the hashish drug in his chest that he sent and the prosecution agent to the analysis, because this procedure and the evidence derived from it is derived from the arrest that took place void and would not have existed if there was no invalid arrest.
3- The rule in the law is that what is based on falsehood is false, and since it was useless to declare the ruling to invalidate the evidence derived from the finding of crumbs of the drug of hashish in the pocket of the contested against him after the absolute annulment of his arrest and the decision to invalidate what he read in connection with and resulting from it, Because what is required by a rational and logical requirement does not need to be clarified, since what was stated by the judgment was acceptable and correct its judgment, and then the claim of failure to cause recedes from it.
4- The impunity of a criminal does not harm justice, as much as the attacks on the freedoms of people and their unlawful arrest would harm them.
Cassation 9/4/1973 - S. 24 - 105 - 506