New law on police filming. Is it possible to remove a traffic police officer? We put everything in its place regarding the issue of filming an inspector on the road while on duty. Legal restrictions on filming

On October 20, a new administrative regulation for traffic police officers (Order No. 664) comes into force, which provoked quite a stir in the media. We decided to find out whether inspectors were really banned from filming and whether it is true that you can now stop a car to check documents anywhere.

Post finished

What is the reason for the stop? - competent drivers like to ask when an inspector slows them down.

So, previously, when stopping outside a checkpoint, a traffic police officer could not refer to the need to check documents. Now he can. But has anything essentially changed? No, our experts say.

The inspector had the opportunity to stop outside the stationary post before, and any more or less savvy employee could easily comply with the formalities of the regulations.

In the new regulations, at first glance, the powers are even expanded, but in fact, a stop to check documents must still be justified.

The requirements for checking documents have only become more stringent: now, whether at a stationary post or outside, the inspector needs the grounds for this, which are listed in paragraph 106 of the new regulations, explains auto expert Yuri Panchenko.

Without going into details, the reasons can be divided into three groups: identifying signs of traffic violations, the presence of orientations or carrying out activities.

Simply put, it is now possible to stop to check documents, but the reasons for stopping a driver are essentially the same! The inspector only needs to announce the identification of signs of traffic violations or refer to a special operation - and the ceremonial part will be completed.

This supposed ban on stopping cars outside of stationary checkpoints was most often appealed to by drunk drivers, trying to ruin the case. But I don’t remember any court accepting their argument, even if the inspector violated the requirements of the regulations,” explains auto lawyer Lev Voropaev. - Understand that courts extremely rarely take into account the mentioned regulations when considering administrative cases against drivers, since the proceedings on them are regulated by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and the procedure for the actions of the inspector is also regulated by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 711, the Law “On Police” ", etc. The topic of the ban on checking documents outside of stationary posts was initially overblown.

Secret signs

But here is a rather interesting aspect discovered by auto expert Yuri Panchenko: in the previous regulations, Art. 57 prohibited the use of automatic fixing devices in places where temporary signs were installed. Now such a ban has disappeared from the regulations.

On the one hand, the authorized person needs to somehow confirm that the temporary sign was actually installed at such and such a time on such and such a section of the road,” comments Yuriy Panchenko. - On the other hand, you can first obtain confirmation of the installation of a temporary sign, for example, from contractor, which carries out repair work, and then slaps “automatic” fines, even if the sign is not installed or installed in violation.

This can give rise to bad practices because temporary signs are often elusive, like happiness. This is not only about deliberate forgery: a temporary sign can fall due to the wind, be stolen or covered by a construction vehicle, but in a few weeks the driver will be able to prove anything only by saving the recording from the dash cam.

In case of violations recorded automatically, it is the driver’s responsibility to prove his own innocence. The presence or absence of temporary signs on the corresponding section of the road at the time of violation will have to be proven by the citizen, and not by the inspector, which, of course, is extremely problematic, says Lev Voropaev.

How to remove an inspector

Another overblown topic is the alleged ban on filming a traffic police inspector. In the previous version of the regulations, the wording was as follows: “An employee must not interfere with the use of video and sound recording equipment by a road user, unless prohibited by law. The employee must inform the road user making the recording about the existence of the prohibition.”

Such a requirement was introduced by the top management of the traffic police after a series of conflicts between drivers and traffic police inspectors, and its motive is clear - to make the work of the traffic police officer transparent.

Yuri Panchenko believes that the permission to film the inspector has not gone away:

The media are trumpeting that for filming an employee you can get almost Part 1 of Art. 19.3 (“Failure to comply with the legal requirements of the inspector”), which threatens punishment up to and including arrest, is utter nonsense. The absence of direct permission in the administrative regulations does not change anything essentially, because the right to conduct such filming is determined by other laws, in particular, the law “On Information...”. There is no law that would prohibit recording a conversation with an inspector, so filming can be done either covertly or openly. But I would warn you against using hidden special recording equipment, for example, pens with a built-in voice recorder. In Russia, even their acquisition constitutes a criminal offense. You can still film the inspector with a regular smartphone.

Lev Voropaev is confident that the new edition of the regulations will increase the number of controversial situations:

Inspectors had already believed through one of them that it was impossible to remove them, but at least direct permission to do this was contained in the administrative regulations. Now they have removed it, and although this has not changed anything essentially, it is unlikely that ordinary employees will delve into these subtleties. They are more often guided by the information background of the media, where the idea of ​​​​a ban on filming is being discussed, so I would not be surprised if traffic police officers more often prevent filming.

About “commercial” cameras

In many regions, a practice has developed where video recording systems for violations do not belong to the traffic police. Their operators and owners are specialized companies that work with the traffic police within the framework of the law on public-private and municipal-private partnerships.

In the new administrative regulations, this approach has been formalized: clause 76 allows the use of technical means, including those belonging to public associations and organizations.

In addition, the cameras must comply with the recently introduced GOST, which is relevant for complexes installed after July 1, 2017.

The best way to get a divorce

Old regulations when seizing counterfeit driver's license provided for the issuance of a temporary permit to the driver, says Yuriy Panchenko. - The new regulations do not provide for the issuance of a temporary permit, and according to paragraph 7.11, a copy of the seized driver’s license is issued if there are signs of forgery. But the seizure of documents is also mentioned in paragraph 219, which is formulated in such a way that it is not necessary to give the driver a copy of the license. I quote: if documents are confiscated, with the exception of the confiscation of a driver’s license, copies are made of them... In practice, this opens a loophole for such a scam: they stop a resting driver somewhere near Krasnodar and say that the license has signs of falsification, due to with what they are confiscated. And since paragraph 219 does not require the provision of a certified copy, an examination will be carried out, and the driver will not go anywhere. And then he is offered to resolve the issue “amicably.”

The expert notes that such a divorce is possible, but illegal. Forgery of documents does not constitute an administrative violation, which is discussed in paragraph 219, but a criminal offense, and, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, in this case, providing a copy is mandatory, as stated in paragraph 7.11.

But inspectors can make a fool of the driver that he will be left without a driver’s license when he is away from home,” concludes Yuriy Panchenko. - If this happens, do not give in and demand a certified copy of the document. And if the rights are nevertheless confiscated, and they turn out to be genuine, then go to court for compensation.

Medical examination with delivery

The regulations have been supplemented with Article 223, which instructs police officers to deliver the driver from the medical center to his car if medical workers did not confirm the state of intoxication.

Is it necessary to cram the regulations?

The excitement around the new administrative regulations creates the impression that this is almost the main document regulating the relationship between the traffic police officer and the driver. Lev Voropaev explains that its importance is exaggerated:

By and large, this is an internal document of the inspection, and it has no direct relation to drivers. The relevance of the regulations can only be discussed in cases where there is a question of holding the inspector accountable for violations, which in practice does not happen often for obvious reasons. Stop the matter administrative offense in relation to the driver (to avoid a fine, deprivation of the right to drive, arrest, etc.), knowledge of administrative regulations is unlikely to help. It is not the primary document that would determine the activities of the traffic police, if we are talking about practice legal proceedings administrative cases against drivers

Yuri Panchenko believes that there are still benefits from knowing the regulations:

He describes all the actions of the inspector and presents an extract from the laws, and even with references to them. When filing a complaint, open the required section of the regulations, rewrite what the inspector was obliged to do, but did not, but place a link not to the regulations themselves, but to the laws mentioned there, he sums up.

On topic

• Residents of Nizhny Novgorod, get ready: the traffic police exam has become more difficult to pass

  Infographics: Polina Avdoshina

  Send your news to the editor, tell us about the problem or suggest a topic for publication. Send a photo or video of an interesting event by email [email protected]. Our WhatsApp and Viber number is 8-910-390-4040. Read news on social networks

The Ministry of Internal Affairs denied information circulating on the Runet that citizens are allegedly prohibited from recording the actions of police officers in photos and videos.

Messages about this appeared in popular groups in social networks and Telegram channels, immediately causing angry and ironic comments from their subscribers. Also, reports about this were published in a number of media.

“It was prohibited to record conversations with a traffic police officer on camera. The corresponding order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was brought into compliance with the norms of current legislation. The clause that allowed citizens to take photos and videos of interactions with a traffic police officer disappeared from the order. That is, this opportunity is provided for the traffic police officers themselves, but has disappeared for those who are faced with the need to communicate with the traffic police,” wrote, for example, the Tula edition of the Moskovsky Komsomolets publication on October 13.

Meanwhile, as Reedus found out, the list of duties assigned to the police is provided for in Part 1 of Article 12 of the Federal Law of February 7, 2011 No. Z-FZ “On the Police”. In accordance with Part 2 of this article, other responsibilities can be assigned to the police only by amending the Federal Law “On the Police”. In this regard, the rule obliging a police officer “not to interfere with the use of photo, video and sound recording equipment by a road user, unless prohibited by law, if there is a prohibition to inform the road user of its grounds” is excluded from the Administrative Regulations.

At the same time, the exclusion of this norm does not prevent citizens from exercising the right to exercise in cases not prohibited by law Russian Federation, audio, video and photography. At the same time, police officers are obliged to respect the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, public associations and organizations by virtue of paragraph 5 of part 1 of Article 27 of the Federal Law “On the Police”. A similar norm is also enshrined in the subsection “Rights and responsibilities of employees in the implementation of federal state supervision” of the Administrative Regulations.

In addition, in order to prevent abuse of official powers, the Administrative Regulations instruct police officers to carry out administrative procedures in the field of view of video surveillance systems located in patrol stations. vehicles and at stationary traffic police posts, or wearable video recorders, the press center of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs told Reedus.

Previously, Reedus told the story of how a daring local police officer lost his job after a scandalous video.

The rule obliging employees not to interfere with the use of recording equipment has disappeared from the new regulations for the work of the road patrol service.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs is going to prohibit road users from taking photos and videos of their employees. This follows from the new administrative regulations prepared by the legal department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The document has been undergoing public discussions since January 2017. Amendments were made to it; in particular, an important clause concerning the inspector’s duty not to interfere with the use of photo, video and sound recording equipment by a road user was removed. In this form, the document has been sent to the Ministry of Justice and can be signed in the near future. Representatives of the Russian Federation of Car Owners sounded the alarm: according to them, there are other changes in the new regulations that significantly increase the powers of inspectors and reduce the rights of drivers. Details are in the material of Realnoe Vremya.

Public discussion is not in favor of the public

The new regulations for the work of traffic police officers were supposed to come into force in April 2017, but they decided to slow down the document - from January 31 to March 1, it underwent public discussion on the federal portal of draft regulatory legal acts and an independent examination. The result was a revised version of the administrative regulations, from which clause 10.13 disappeared, which stated that “employees in the performance of public functions are obliged not to interfere with the use of photo, video and sound recording equipment by a road user, unless prohibited by law, if there is prohibition of informing a road user of its reasons.” In this form, the document was sent to the Russian Ministry of Justice.

The Russian Federation of Car Owners sounded the alarm: “When I saw that this norm had disappeared, I immediately wrote to the Ministry of Justice. Despite the fact that public hearings took place, the history of 2009 shows that there is still a chance to return it, because then the Ministry of Justice included the requirement for video recording. There is a chance that this time they will pay attention to this and ask the Ministry of Internal Affairs to return this norm,” says Dmitry Klevtsov, vice-president of the Federation of Motorists of Russia.

As follows from Dmitry Klevtsov’s communication with representatives of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the norm protecting the rights of drivers disappeared from the document not by chance and not due to a technical error. Photo reporter64.ru

It was not possible to obtain an official comment from the traffic police by the time of publication of Realnoe Vremya. However, as follows from Dmitry Klevtsov’s communication with representatives of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the norm protecting the rights of drivers disappeared from the document not by chance and not due to a technical error. He contacted them when he discovered the missing items in new version administrative regulations.

The developer, a representative of the legal department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, explained this by saying that there is no need to enter the clause separately, because the regulations were written in 2009, when there was no law on the police. In 2011, a police law appeared, but there is no clear prohibition on obstructing video filming. It says that when restricting filming, an employee must refer to the law. Also, they say, we have federal law that a citizen has the right to receive and disseminate information in any legal way is part 3 of Art. 15 of the Constitution, which states that any ban must be published in the form of a normative legal act. But proving all this to a traffic police officer is a long story. If you look at the practice of the patrol service, which works according to the law on the police, then when problems arise and a citizen takes out his phone, the employee prohibits him. The citizen says that according to the police law you must refer to normative document, which would prohibit filming, to which they answer that “you can appeal my actions to a higher authority,” Dmitry Klevtsov tells Realnoe Vremya’s correspondent.

“I thought that the protocols were drawn up against oppositionists detained at rallies, but it turned out...”

The absence of a rule obliging the traffic police officer not to interfere with video filming will lead to abuse of power, Klevtsov believes: “Officers will prohibit video filming and thereby deprive the driver of an alternative source of evidence.” At the same time, traffic police inspectors, according to the new regulations, retain the right to “use information systems, video and audio equipment, film and photographic equipment, as well as other technical and special means that do not cause harm to the life and health of citizens.”

Police officers are given broad powers to replace witnesses and witnesses in administrative procedures by video recording using special technical means or other means with a video recording function. This wording means that if a police officer does not have technical equipment in the form of a video recorder or a chest-mounted video camera, then he can use a personal phone during administrative procedures. But personal funds do not have a function of protection against erasure, and if this record is deleted for some reason, then the citizen will not have the opportunity to prove his innocence, says Dmitry Klevtsov.

“This wording means that if a police officer does not have a technical means in the form of a video recorder, a chest-mounted video camera, then he can use his personal phone during administrative procedures. And personal funds do not have an anti-erasure function,” says Dmitry Klevtsov. Photo nashkamensk.ru

Attempts by a driver to film a conversation with a traffic police officer can lead to dire consequences - the inspector may draw up a report for violating Art. 19.3 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Disobedience to a lawful order” official body implementing state supervision(control), municipal control.”

We carried out judicial monitoring on the practice of applying this article, I thought that the protocols were drawn up against oppositionists detained at rallies, but it turned out that most of the violators were drivers. Reading judgment: everywhere it is described that the driver was driving, he was stopped by a traffic police officer. He started filming, the employee forbade him - and now art. 19.3. And this measure provides for 15 days. As a rule, such a punishment is not given - 99 percent of such articles end in a fine of 500 rubles, says Klevtsov.

All the best for the guest: a souvenir entry will be left only for foreigners

There are other changes in the new regulations that significantly increase the powers of inspectors and reduce the rights of drivers. Thus, the requirement to save video recordings is provided only if an administrative offense is suspected foreign citizen, with corresponding “immunity”.

That is, according to the letter of the law, there is no requirement for citizens of the Russian Federation to take measures to preserve video recordings? - Klevtsov is perplexed.

According to the representative of the FAR, the current regulations were good; they spelled out a lot of administrative procedures, starting with the rules for registering an accident, ending with the performance of duty. “It was enough that the traffic police officers read it and knew it so as not to violate the rights of citizens.” Moreover, the regulations could be extended to other departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

For two years now, we have been writing letters to the Ministry of Internal Affairs with a request to introduce into the regulations norms for citizens taking photographs and videos in police departments where citizens have access. It’s clear that you can’t film in the weapons room, but there’s no public access there,” says Dmitry Klevtsov.

It must be admitted that the adoption of the new regulations will affect not only the rights of drivers; the Internet will also lose a lot. There are hundreds of thousands of funny and not so funny videos on social networks and YouTube about car owners communicating with traffic police officers - this is the most popular content, gaining millions of views. The rich collection can only be viewed with nostalgia.

Daria Turtseva