SECURITY COUNCIL
CONSEQUENCE LEADS SP
CASE ON THE RIGHT DOG
SERGEY VOLGIN. FIGURE SERGEY SAVILOV
Ilya was in a hurry to get home when, as luck would have it, he got into a traffic jam on the embankment. Double continuous, four lanes. He stood for 10 minutes, 20 … Other cars boldly traveled around the oncoming one or turned around (through a solid double) and left for the opposite direction. “But what’s worse?” Ilya decided, drove to the “oncoming lane” and immediately ran into a traffic cop standing on the embankment. The result is an administrative violation under Article 12.15, Part 3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses ("exit to the oncoming lane of the carriageway …").
AFTER HOLIDAY
Ilya didn’t get to the court session - another vacation began, tickets were already bought. The court decision was to deprive the right of management for a period of two months. Ilya found out about the adopted verdict as soon as he returned from vacation - he called the court. I did not dispute the decision - what is there to argue when everything is already so clear! True, in accordance with the law, a copy should have been sent by mail within three days, but for some reason they did not.
Ilya regularly waited two months, and when the deadline expired, he came (on foot!) To the traffic police for his driver’s license. The inspector listened attentively, and then opened article 32.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and read it out loud. After that, he took the “makeshift” from Ilya and offered to come for “rights” … after another two months. He considered that Ilya was obliged to hand over a temporary permit to the traffic police, and since he did not do it on time, the term of deprivation would be calculated from the day it was actually withdrawn. Ilya tried to object - they say, in the court ruling there is not a word about the need to hand over a temporary permit to the traffic police, and the secretary, when she gave a copy of the ruling, said nothing about this. The inspector’s argument discouraged: “I’m not sure that you haven’t traveled these two months. Therefore, I cannot return “rights” to you. After that, Ilya turned to us.
I BELIEVE - I DO NOT BELIEVE
I must say, readers have to deal with such problems quite often. The main difficulty lies in the interpretation of the already mentioned article 32.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, which determines the terms of deprivation of "rights". In accordance with the norm, the period is calculated from the moment the court order comes into force. That is, 10 days after the decision or delivery of a copy to the driver (when there are no complaints).
If a driver’s license is withdrawn, a temporary permit will be issued in return. From the moment the judgment in the case comes into force (it doesn’t matter if the driver was deprived of the right to drive or just fined), the temporary permit expires. And here the main problems arise. It is almost impossible to verify whether a decision has been made in a particular case and, moreover, whether the decision has entered into force. Not all traffic police crews have access to a database of drivers deprived of the right to drive. Therefore, it is not an easy task to check whether the driver evades the delivery of a temporary permit or not. In reality, you can freely travel with temporary permission until some cautious inspector is not too lazy to check the driver at the base.
To avoid this, in Part 2 of Art. 32.7 we are talking about those who evade the issuance of a temporary permit: for them the term of deprivation will be calculated only from the moment of the actual removal of the “temporary shelter”. Here are just specifically what should be considered "evasion", the law has not defined. In addition, there is not a single normative act that obliges drivers to issue temporary permits after the decision is issued. This is under Art. 32.6 are obliged to make the traffic police after the entry into force of the decision on the deprivation of the right to drive. And if only the driver refuses to give temporary permission, then he will be considered a “deviator” with all the ensuing consequences (up to bringing to justice under part 1 of article 19.3; for this a fine of 500-1000 rubles or arrest up to 15 days).
In our case, there was no “evasion” at all! On the contrary, when Ilya came to the traffic police, he at the very first request of the inspector gave him temporary permission. And the fact that the inspector “has no certainty” is his problem - in accordance with the principle of the presumption of innocence (Article 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses), all doubts are interpreted in favor of the accused. So I immediately advised Ilya to write a statement as follows:
“To the commander of the 3rd battalion of the traffic police traffic police of the Central Administrative District of Moscow
from S. Ilya Nikolaevich
On July 31, I was driving on the **** car along the Kosmodamianskaya Embankment of Moscow and was accused of violating traffic rules, responsibility for which comes under Article 12.15 Part 3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. Inspector of the 3rd battalion F. compiled a protocol and seized a driver’s license. On August 14, as a result of the consideration of the case, a decision was made to impose a sentence of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for a period of 2 (two) months.
Based on the foregoing and in connection with the expiration of the period of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle, I ask you to return my driver's license.
Applications:
1) A copy of the decision on an administrative offense."
S. sent the letter to the secretary. Further, according to him, the following happened - at the same time, the “commander” of the battalion turned out to be “by himself”. He immediately “ran over” the girl - “why did she accept this application!”, And when Ilya asked about his driver’s license, he referred to article 32.7: “It’s specially invented for such“smart people”. Then he left with a sense of accomplishment. Apparently, this should have been understood as a refusal.
We needed an official answer, but most likely it did not make sense to wait for it. Therefore, a complaint came to light in the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of Moscow for the actions of officials of the traffic police battalion. “After the expiration of the term of deprivation, I turned to the head of the 3rd battalion of the traffic police of the traffic police of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Central Administrative District of Moscow with a statement about the issue of a driver’s license detained while committing an offense, but I was refused,” S. wrote. from the withdrawal of temporary permission, while I did not receive any written response. After that, a temporary permit was taken from me and offered to come back two months later.” He further cited the arguments I have stated above and asked "to give an order to return the driver's license."
The complaint was sent to the traffic police by mail with a receipt of delivery.
ONCE, TWO WEEKS LATER …
… Ilya reappeared in the traffic police. The secretary, recognizing him, immediately sent to the deputy battalion commander D. Rozhkov.
- Why did you write a complaint? - asked the castle. - Why such extremes? After all, our employees treated you politely, were not rude, and in general you yourself are to blame, because you did not appear in court …
Further - again an irrefutable police argument:
- Why should I return you “rights”? We have a lot of tricks who travel with temporary permission.
To which S. replied:
- I have not driven a car since the decision came into force. I can still not drive as much and do not worry about this. But now my lawyer is engaged in this matter: let him deal with this problem; he has already prepared complaints to higher authorities. You can not give me my “rights” - this is your decision.
- Well, why write complaints? Why spend money on a lawyer? - the officer “strained” a little.
- How else to deal with violations of the law? You know that I’m right, but you don’t give away your driver’s license. Sorry, I don’t have time, talk with my lawyer.
This seems to have hit the zombie.
“Let's forget about the lawyer and have a human conversation,” the officer suggested (and who is against? - S. V.). “Of course, I understand that you might not have known that you need to appear and return the provisional certificate, but I obey the law … But, if you are telling the truth and have not traveled this time, then it turns out that humanly I have to return your “rights” … And if we close this case, give you a driver’s license, you won’t continue to complain?
- Yes, I will be satisfied.
- And what do you say to your lawyer?
Ilya took the complaint and wrote on the reverse side: "I am satisfied with the verbal answer, no written request is required."
The zambombat immediately gave the command by telephone: to return the certificate.
But in the group of administrative practice, “rights” were initially refused to return, even despite the direct instruction of the authorities! Twice the inspector called somewhere, someone convinced him, but in return he stubbornly answered: “I'll see, think …” And at the same time he talked about the notorious article 32.7 and that “writing complaints is not good.” This went on for forty minutes (!). Finally, Ilya was tired of all this. He got up to go again to the chief; Having seen this, the inspector took offended the “rights” from the table and gave them away.
