Where administrative detention is served
Administrative detention is the penalty in the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia that restricts a person's liberty directly, and the Code sets out separately how it is carried out. Under Article 309(1), a person on whom administrative detention has been imposed serves it in a place determined by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia. The same paragraph states that when the decision on administrative detention is executed, a personal search of the detained person is carried out. Those two rules describe what happens in the first hours: transfer to a place the Ministry has determined, and a personal search at the point where execution begins.
The personal search is named in the Code as part of execution, so it is not in itself irregular. What matters is how it is recorded: which items were taken, who was present, and in what form they are returned when the term expires. Those records are later the only objective basis for any complaint.
Time spent in apprehension counts towards the detention term
Article 309(2) contains what is often the most practically important rule in this part of the Code: the term of administrative apprehension is counted into the term of administrative detention. Time held before the court ruled is not added on top of the penalty — it forms part of it. This is why the exact hour and minute of the actual apprehension matters, and why the time recorded in the apprehension protocol is worth checking immediately. If that time is recorded incorrectly, or is not specified at all, a person can end up spending longer in conditions of restricted liberty than the penalty imposed on them actually provides for.
Physical work and wages — Article 310
Article 310 contains two rules. The first is that persons subject to administrative detention are used for physical work. The second is that during the period of detention such persons are not paid wages at their permanent place of work. For an employed person the second rule frequently produces a more tangible consequence than the detention itself: the days spent in detention are days without pay. That consequence is a reason to argue about the type and length of the penalty while the case is being heard, when saying so still affects the outcome, rather than after the decision has been executed.
The two rules belong together. Use on physical work is part of the regime; the loss of wages at the permanent workplace is its economic consequence. For someone in employment that makes documentary proof of the detention and its dates useful in a second relationship as well, because the reason for absence from work is the execution of a penalty rather than a personal choice.