The story of Artem Sablin from Tolyatti “spun” already on March 10, 2018. Then his car was stopped by the traffic police to check documents. At the same time, they discovered that the driver smells like alcohol and behaves like a drunk. “Purge” on the breathalyzer confirmed that Sablin was not sober. He told police that he had been drinking beer and agreed with the results of the investigation. The traffic police officers denied him driving the car, sent him to the confiscated premises and issued a protocol under Part 1 of Article 12.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses on the act of drunk driving.
As required by procedure, all papers were drawn up in the presence of two witnesses. In addition, one of them turned out to be a police officer, who apparently dropped by on personal business during his full-time service.
After that, the Sablin case began to travel through the courts. The first to think about it was the magistrate of section No. 115 of Tolyatti, Samara region, who terminated the proceedings for the lack of an administrative violation. He concluded that the presence of a police officer among the testifying witnesses contradicted the requirement of Article 25.7 of the Code of Administrative Violations regarding disinterest. Representatives of law enforcement agencies, of course, disagreed and appealed the decision of the justice of the peace – they believed that he had not fully examined the file material.
As a result, the Samara court overturned the acquittals of justices of the peace in the Sablin case a total of two times. But in the end, the regional courts of the Central District and Samara (already in the third “circle” of reviews) agreed with the decision of the world court, which found Sablin guilty of “driving under the influence”. He was “sentenced” to a fine of 30,000 rubles and deprivation of “rights” for 1.5 years. The driver, of course, disagreed with this outcome and turned to the Supreme Court for the truth.
But the Supreme Court refused to side with the citizen. The Supreme Court has established that the fact that the driver was drunk has been objectively confirmed by an investigation, the results and method of which have been recognized by Sablin. And the fact that one of the witnesses turned out to be a law enforcement officer does not mean that judicial acts are canceled. Since the Supreme Court saw no interest in the outcome of the case with the police witness.
So if we abstract directly from this particular story about drunk driving, the Supreme Court affirmed that the traffic police officer can establish absolutely any “correct” (that is, personally beneficial) protocol regarding any driver, with the help of his colleagues in the field as “independent witnesses”.
The story of Artem Sablin from Togliatti “spun” already on March 10, 2018. Then his car was stopped by the traffic police to check documents. At the same time, they found that the driver smelled of alcohol and acted like a drunk. “Purge” on the breathalyzer confirmed that Sablin was not sober. He told police that he had been drinking beer and agreed with the results of the investigation. The traffic police officers denied him driving the car, sent him to the confiscated premises and issued a protocol under Part 1 of Article 12.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses on the act of drunk driving.
As required by procedure, all papers were drawn up in the presence of two witnesses. In addition, one of them turned out to be a police officer, who apparently dropped by on personal business during his full-time service.
After that, the Sablin case began to travel through the courts. The first to think about it was the magistrate of section No. 115 of Togliatti, Samara region, who terminated the proceedings for the lack of an administrative offense. He concluded that the presence of a police officer among the testifying witnesses contradicted the requirement of Article 25.7 of the Code of Administrative Violations regarding disinterest. Representatives of law enforcement agencies, of course, disagreed and appealed the decision of the justice of the peace – they believed that he had not fully examined the file material.
As a result, the Samara court overturned the acquittals of justices of the peace in the Sablin case a total of two times. But in the end, the regional courts of the Central District and Samara (already in the third “circle” of reviews) agreed with the decision of the world court, which found Sablin guilty of “driving under the influence”. He was “sentenced” to a fine of 30,000 rubles and deprivation of “rights” for 1.5 years. The driver, of course, disagreed with this outcome and turned to the Supreme Court for the truth.
But the Supreme Court refused to side with the citizen. The Supreme Court finds that the fact that the driver was drunk has been objectively confirmed by an investigation, the results and method of which have been recognized by Sablin. And the fact that one of the witnesses turned out to be a law enforcement officer does not mean that judicial acts are canceled. Since the Supreme Court saw no interest in the outcome of the case with the police witness.
So if we abstract directly from this particular story about drunk driving, the Supreme Court affirmed that the traffic police officer can establish absolutely any “correct” (that is, personally favorable) protocol regarding any driver, with the help of his colleagues in the field as “independent witnesses”.
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.