9621 Agnes Crossing, Lake Suzanneview, New Mexico Island 84604-9295.
Many motorists assume that any punishment for a traffic violation should be based on objective evidence: photo and video recordings, the results of some measurements, research or the
The issue of tinting car windshields will remain a burning topic in Russia as long as cars and traffic police exist. Another “aggravation” of this endless confrontation between the “helmsmen” and the police officers took place at the Supreme Court.
A car owner from Kaliningrad decided to follow the principle and appeal against the fine of 500 rubles “for coloring” imposed on him by the traffic police. Citizen R., who was driving a personal Mercedes-Benz, was stopped by police officers on Leninsky Prospekt in Kaliningrad late in the evening of February 28, 2022. During the document check, the police noticed the ‘blind’ discoloration of the car’s windscreens. And we decided to check them for compliance with light transmission standards. But the car owner did not hesitate and quickly removed the “blackout” from the windows and put it in the trunk.
If someone does not know it, there is a so-called ‘hard tinting’. This is a sheet of transparent plastic on which a tint film is glued, the shape of which exactly repeats the profile of the window opening of the car door. And this plastic can stick to glass. If you don’t touch it, it will stick well. However, if desired, this sheet can be removed with one movement of the hand. And later stick it back on the window. Citizen R. removed such a ‘hard shade’ – right in front of the police. That is, he actually eliminated the traffic violation.
However, the patrol officers still fined him 500 rubles. Even though they couldn’t control the light transmission. In addition, it turned out that they had not video recorded their communication with the car owner on the topic of tint.
A principled citizen decided to withdraw the fine in court. However, all courts where his complaint was heard sided with the traffic police. Ultimately, the case reached the Supreme Court. It follows from his decision that the driver has not received a fine under section 3.1 of art. 12.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (“Driving a vehicle on which glass is installed and the light transmission of which does not meet the requirements of the technical regulations”), and under Part 1 of the same Art. 12.5 Code of Administrative Offenses! She is talking about “operating a vehicle in the presence of malfunctions or conditions under which its use is prohibited.” That is, we are not talking about punishment “for tinting”, but about installing objects that obstruct the view from the driver’s seat. The fine in both cases is 500 rubles, but as they say: “there is a nuance.”
Moreover, the presence of the same “objects” is confirmed solely by the words of the traffic police patrol. There is no other evidence in the case that our hero committed an administrative violation. However, the Supreme Court decided that it had “no reason to distrust the inspectors” and left the driver’s complaint unsatisfied, upholding the legality of the fine. This confirmed once again that the word of a traffic police officer before a judge is a kind of “boy’s word”…
The issue of tinting car windshields will remain a burning topic in Russia as long as cars and traffic police exist. Another “aggravation” of this endless confrontation between the “helmsmen” and the police officers took place at the Supreme Court.
A car owner from Kaliningrad decided to follow the principle and appeal against the fine of 500 rubles “for coloring” imposed on him by the traffic police. Citizen R., who was driving a personal Mercedes-Benz, was stopped by police officers on Leninsky Prospekt in Kaliningrad late in the evening of February 28, 2022. During the document check, the police noticed the ‘blind’ discoloration of the car’s windscreens. And we decided to check them for compliance with light transmission standards. But the car owner did not hesitate and quickly removed the “blackout” from the windows and put it in the trunk.
If someone does not know it, there is a so-called ‘hard tinting’. This is a sheet of transparent plastic on which a tint film is glued, the shape of which exactly repeats the profile of the window opening of the car door. And this plastic can stick to glass. If you don’t touch it, it will stick well. However, if desired, this sheet can be removed with one movement of the hand. And later stick it back on the window. Citizen R. removed such a ‘hard shade’ – right in front of the police. That is, he actually eliminated the traffic violation.
However, the patrol officers still fined him 500 rubles. Even though they couldn’t control the light transmission. In addition, it turned out that they had not video recorded their communication with the car owner on the topic of tint.
A principled citizen decided to withdraw the fine in court. However, all courts where his complaint was heard sided with the traffic police. Ultimately, the case reached the Supreme Court. It follows from his decision that the driver has not received a fine under section 3.1 of art. 12.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (“Driving a vehicle on which glass is installed and the light transmission of which does not meet the requirements of the technical regulations”), and under Part 1 of the same Art. 12.5 Code of Administrative Offenses! She is talking about “operating a vehicle in the presence of malfunctions or conditions under which its use is prohibited.” That is, we are not talking about punishment “for tinting”, but about installing objects that obstruct the view from the driver’s seat. The fine in both cases is 500 rubles, but as they say: “there is a nuance.”
Moreover, the presence of the same “objects” is confirmed solely by the words of the traffic police patrol. There is no other evidence in the case that our hero committed an administrative violation. However, the Supreme Court decided that it had “no reason to distrust the inspectors” and left the driver’s complaint open, upholding the legality of the fine. This confirmed once again that the word of a traffic police officer before a judge is a kind of “boy’s word”…
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.
