9621 Agnes Crossing, Lake Suzanneview, New Mexico Island 84604-9295.
The battle between traffic cops and motorists sealing the windshields of their cars with tinted film has escalated in the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug. A similar method can be
Recently on the public pages of the largest settlement of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, the city of Surgut, a photo of a curious document in the hands of the local traffic police appeared. This is a pre-drafted “requirements to eliminate the conditions conducive to committing an administrative offense” form. We’re talking about removing illegal tints from car windows. The document is almost completely ready: the inspector can only enter the data of the driver encountered and his own.
Particular attention in this remarkable text is drawn by the sentence: “I demand that the causes and circumstances contributing to the implementation of threats to the safety of citizens and public danger in the field of road traffic be immediately, but no later than before , be taken away the beginning of further traffic.” Thus, the offender has no right to get into the car and legally drive to the service center, where specialists will remove the ill-fated film. Since for violation of the “legal requirement of a police officer” liability will immediately fall under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses – with a fine of 2000-4000 rubles or administrative arrest for 15 days.
It is surprising in this story that until recently, in order to correct any defects in the car, traffic police officers usually indicated in their “demands” the period when the motorist was ordered to fix it. Usually it is 10 days, which is reasonable. And the “Surgut form” in principle does not delay: tear off the film immediately if you want to leave, or stand still until the end of time!
It must be admitted that traffic policemen do not, in principle, break the law in this way. In no legal act of the Russian Federation, the exact period of “elimination of causes and conditions” is not specified. So the policeman is in that sense free to do whatever comes to his mind. By the way, this does not only apply to paints. A similar “requirement” can easily be presented to a motorist who, for example, installed LEDs or “lasers” in the headlights instead of ordinary “halogens”. He may also be required to dismantle them on the spot.
But! A driver who got into such a situation can only have one legal way to get out of the “kill zone” of a traffic cop – to call a tow truck and drive the car on it. Such action is not considered “failing to comply with a legal requirement”. This was once confirmed by the Supreme Court in its Judgment No. 11-AD19-28 of October 11, 2019. The Supreme Court Judge VP Merkulov then ruled that the requirement to remove the tints from the windows without the driver here sufficient time for “does not meet the criteria of reasonableness and feasibility”.
It is curious that four months earlier, in June 2019, the same Supreme Court judge upheld the judgment of another director under 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. There, a motorist who received a similar order to remove the tint was penalized for not calling a tow truck, but getting into his car and driving it. Which was deemed by Themis to be “failure to comply with a legal requirement”.
Recently on the public pages of the largest settlement of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, the city of Surgut, a photo of a curious document in the hands of the local traffic police appeared. This is a pre-drafted “requirements to eliminate the conditions conducive to committing an administrative offense” form. We’re talking about removing illegal tints from car windows. The document is almost completely ready: the inspector only needs to enter the data of the driver encountered and his own.
Particular attention in this remarkable text is drawn by the sentence: “I demand that the causes and conditions contributing to the implementation of threats to the safety of citizens and public hazards in the field of road traffic, immediately, but no later than before, be taken away. the beginning of further traffic.” Thus, the offender has no right to get into the car and legally drive to the service center, where specialists will remove the ill-fated film. Since for violation of the “legal requirement of a police officer” liability will immediately fall under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses – with a fine of 2000-4000 rubles or administrative arrest for 15 days.
It is surprising in this story that until recently, in order to correct any defects in the car, traffic police officers usually indicated in their “demands” the period when the motorist was ordered to fix it. Usually it is 10 days, which is reasonable. And the “Surgut form” in principle does not delay: tear off the film immediately if you want to leave, or stand still until the end of time!
It must be admitted that traffic policemen do not, in principle, break the law in this way. In no legal act of the Russian Federation, the exact period of “elimination of causes and conditions” is not specified. So the policeman is in that sense free to do whatever comes to his mind. By the way, this does not only apply to paints. A similar “requirement” can easily be presented to a motorist who, for example, installed LEDs or “lasers” in the headlights instead of ordinary “halogens”. He may also be required to dismantle them on the spot.
But! A driver who got into such a situation can only have one legal way to get out of the “kill zone” of a traffic cop – to call a tow truck and drive the car on it. Such action is not considered “failing to comply with a legal requirement”. This was once confirmed by the Supreme Court in its Judgment No. 11-AD19-28 of October 11, 2019. The Supreme Court Judge VP Merkulov then ruled that the requirement to remove the tints from the windows without the driver here sufficient time for “does not meet the criteria of reasonableness and feasibility”.
It is curious that four months earlier, in June 2019, the same Supreme Court judge upheld the judgment of another director under 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. There, a motorist who received a similar order to remove the tint was penalized for not calling a tow truck, but getting into his car and driving it. Which was deemed by Themis to be “failure to comply with a legal requirement”.
Source: Avto Vzglyad
Donald Salinas is an experienced automobile journalist and writer for Div Bracket. He brings his readers the latest news and developments from the world of automobiles, offering a unique and knowledgeable perspective on the latest trends and innovations in the automotive industry.
