Should there be video recording of traffic violations?

Should the traffic police inspector present evidence of a violation?

The content of the article

According to current legislation, and in particular, Part 1 of Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the traffic police inspector who stopped the driver for violating traffic rules and drew up the appropriate protocol on such violation is obliged to familiarize the driver of the stopped vehicle with all the materials of the case. It is worth considering the fact that the traffic police inspector, until a case of administrative offense is initiated, can only indicate on what basis the vehicle was stopped, and is not obliged to provide evidence in this case. Only after an administrative case has been initiated, familiarization of the driver with his rights and case materials becomes the direct responsibility of the inspection officer.

Important! An administrative case is considered initiated from the moment a protocol of inspection of the scene of the incident is drawn up regarding an administrative offense.

Evidence is an integral part of the case of an administrative offense, therefore, at the first request, the traffic police officer who drew up the report is obliged to provide it to the driver. Taking into account this fact and the direct instructions of Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the driver also has the right to file petitions and challenges, use the legal assistance of a defense attorney, and give explanations. If the inspector refuses to provide the driver with evidence in the case, then this fact must be written down before signing the protocol on the administrative offense. Please indicate, referring to Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, that you requested to provide evidence, but the traffic police inspector refused without explanation. It should also be mentioned that it is necessary to immediately request a copy of the decree after it has been signed.

How should a traffic police officer prove your violation?

Despite the fact that the inspector is obliged to present the driver with evidence of the violation, he is not at all obliged to justify it. No matter how paradoxical it may sound, it is true. The presumption of innocence of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in terms of traffic violations does not apply. The driver has the right to appeal the decision to bring him to administrative responsibility within 10 days, but he will have to prove his innocence independently in court. This category of cases is not subject to state duty.

Thus, in the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 22, 2011 No. 391-О-О, the court explained in detail the special procedure for an alleged traffic violator to prove his innocence.

It is worth taking into account the fact that in all cases of restriction of the driver’s rights and freedoms, the traffic police officer is obliged to explain to him the basis and reason for such a restriction, as well as his rights and obligations arising in connection with this. This rule was established by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia dated March 2, 2009 No. 185 “On approval of the Administrative Regulations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the execution of the state function of control and supervision of compliance by road users with requirements in the field of ensuring road safety.”

Sometimes violations of traffic rules are recorded using video or photography, which are sent to the traffic police department, where, based on the materials provided, a decision is made on an administrative violation in the absence of the driver. If the driver received a decision to bring him to administrative responsibility with attached photo or video evidence by mail, you should pay attention to the date when the offense was committed. If another person was driving a car owned by the driver and recorded on a photo or video at the time of violation of traffic rules, then you should file a claim in court to challenge the decision on an administrative violation. To do this, the driver must ensure that the traffic violator appears in court, who can confirm his arguments.

If the driver does not want to frame the violator, then you don’t have to worry, since the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility is 3 months (with the exception of Articles 12.8, 12.24, 12.26, 12.27, 12.30 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - here the statute of limitations is 1 year).

Often, traffic police inspectors themselves violate federal law by refusing to provide the driver with evidence contained in the administrative violation case file. In such cases, you should not give in to emotions, but simply indicate in the protocol that you do not agree with the violation charged to you, take a copy and go to court with a statement of claim.

If the violation is recorded on a photo or video recorder, the traffic police officer is obliged to indicate in the protocol that the violation was recorded using technical means of video recording of violations, be sure to indicate the name of the device, its number and the validity period of the verification certificate, which he is also obliged to show to the driver for verification. If the traffic police inspector evades these actions, then this circumstance must be recorded in the protocol.

Considering that regulation No. 185 in clauses 24 and 25 allows both the driver and the traffic police officer to record the conversation, if evidence is not provided at the driver’s request, especially if video recording was mentioned, the conversation may be ended.

If the driver refused to sign the protocol because the traffic police officers did not provide evidence, then such an action in court will be perceived as a sign of the driver’s guilt. It is better to sign the protocol, but indicate that the driver does not agree with the specified offense.

If, during a conversation with a traffic police inspector, the driver assumes that the reason for the stop is illegal, the traffic police officer should be reminded of his responsibility in accordance with Art. 12.35 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Proof is the most difficult action in a court hearing, which in most cases is beyond the power of a person without a legal education. But at the same time, it is worth remembering that a clear knowledge of the law will help, when stopping a vehicle, not only to act competently when communicating with a traffic police officer, but also to point out violations on his part in order to challenge the decision made on an administrative offense. If you have a similar situation, immediately contact a car lawyer who will help resolve the conflict situation and help defend your legitimate interests in court. Our specialists are ready to come to your aid. Fill out the feedback form or contact the phone numbers listed on our website.

ATTENTION! Due to recent changes in legislation, the information in this article may be out of date! Our lawyer will advise you free of charge.

Should the traffic police inspector present evidence of traffic violations?

Every day in the Russian Federation hundreds of offenses committed by vehicle drivers are recorded. But don’t traffic police officers themselves make mistakes when stopping a car? New videos and photos of illegal behavior of inspectors with drivers regularly appear on the Internet. Nevertheless, not everyone still knows how a patrolman is obliged to act after stopping a vehicle, what the car owner has the right to demand and what evidence of traffic violations is valid, and where the law enforcement officer is simply using his official position.

Legislative regulation

In accordance with Article 25 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences, the traffic police patrol officer is obliged, after stopping the vehicle, to name the reason - the alleged violation. But he should not provide all the materials, including video recording, at the time of the stop. According to the law, the whole procedure is as follows:

Employee presentation in form.
Announcement of the reason for the stop by the inspector with reference to the specific traffic rule violation.
Please provide the driver's documents for review.
Drawing up the protocol itself.
Demonstration of all evidence of the violation to the perpetrator, as a participant in the opened case under the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

If, after stopping the vehicle, the inspector can present evidence of a violation committed by the driver, then after drawing up a protocol he undertakes to do so. Now the traffic police officer bears administrative responsibility for refusing to familiarize himself with the case materials. If, even after drawing up the protocol, the policeman does not show the culprit a record of his violation, then the driver must mention this in the document drawn up in free form before signing it. After which it is necessary to request a copy of the protocol so that the inspector does not write anything into it without the driver’s knowledge.

What can serve as evidence of guilt?

The reason given while stopping the motorist must subsequently be confirmed financially by the traffic police officer. This could be photographs, video recordings of what happened, speed radar readings, or a diagram of the offense. According to the law, the inspector only provides evidence of the driver’s guilt for review; he should not comment on or explain it. For example, they show a photo of a car with fake license plates. The patrolman only shows the picture; he is not obliged to give reasons for his decision. The judge will determine the legality of his claim. In the case of radar, proof of guilt will be quick and difficult to dispute, since there are readings from an accurate device. Which, by the way, will also be shown to the violator after the protocol is drawn up.

If the car was stopped due to its similarity to the vehicle from the landmark, then the process of proving the driver’s innocence will be more difficult. According to the law, police cannot show the driver the orientation itself under the pretext of confidentiality of the investigation. However, they are required to name the wanted car by form (make, model, color, license plates, if any are indicated in the document). There is also a plus here: such a detention does not threaten the driver (if it was not he who stole the car) with an administrative fine, since, according to the results of the reconciliation, he does not fit the guidelines. However, today this can only be an excuse to stop, after which the inspector will find new violations in the owner’s documents themselves or inside the cabin. Since the policeman may ask to see a first aid kit, fire extinguisher, etc.

Procedure for visually recording a violation

One of the most common forms of recording an offense is visual. Here, stopping a vehicle is possible due to “eyeballing”. A traffic police officer saw that a violation was being committed (the driver turned in the wrong place, parked, crossed a double line, and overtook, despite the prohibitory sign). To determine such violations, no special instruments are needed, since the inspector personally becomes a witness.

But proving visual fixation will not be easy. Today, drivers immediately after a stop demand proof of the violation committed, not knowing that the policeman is not obliged to present it immediately. In order to subsequently provide evidence that the car owner did not adhere to traffic rules while driving, a traffic police officer must record the incident in any way available. This is where photography and video recording come to the rescue, the results of which are later attached to the case. The protocol must include the testimony of the police officer as a witness to the violation and a mention of the fact that a photographic recording of the incident was later made.

Conclusion

The procedure for inspecting a vehicle and verifying documents implies that the traffic police officer only names the reason for stopping the car, and demonstrates the evidence after drawing up the protocol. However, the driver should not refuse to sign the document simply because the police officer refused to show the recording materials. You should indicate when drawing it up that you do not agree with the alleged traffic violation and ask for a copy of the protocol after signing.

Is the traffic police inspector required to show video violations to the driver?

Traffic police patrols especially often like to use video recording in “fed” places - where road conditions or some shortcomings in the markings or placement of road signs especially often force drivers to violate their requirements. Previously, this was mainly how traffic police “fed” speed limit violators. And now she has almost completely “switched” to “entering the lane intended for oncoming traffic.” And it’s true: who wants to fill out piles of protocols for 500-1000 rubles, when a couple of accommodating “meeters” during each shift make not only the patrol members, but also their boss and the boss’s boss feel great?

One way or another, the increasing distribution of service video recording cameras among the broad masses of local traffic police officers has taught drivers that any traffic violation must be recorded on video. And even if the recording exists, but the policeman for some reason does not show it, then it is as if there was no traffic violation, which means the decision on the administrative penalty can be successfully appealed. Actually this is not true. According to the administrative procedure, as soon as a report begins to be drawn up against a citizen, he receives the right, on the basis of 25.1 of the Administrative Code, “to get acquainted with all the materials of the case, give explanations, present evidence,” etc.

In addition, the administrative regulations require the inspector to explain to the violating driver the essence of his sin against the traffic rules and the Code of Administrative Offences. However, nowhere, not a single law or by-law, does it say that the traffic police officer is obliged to show the driver a video recording of his violation. Moreover, another article of the Code of Administrative Offenses, 26.1, says that in an administrative case, any factual data on the basis of which the driver’s guilt is established can serve as evidence. Including the testimony of the traffic police officer himself. In a court or “analysis group”, when preparing a decision on an administrative case, yes, the driver has every right to “get acquainted with the materials” if he wishes. And when drawing up a protocol, it is not at all necessary.

In fact, no one requires a police officer to present a video recording of the traffic violation by the person responsible for the accident when registering it. And no one even mentioned police videos some 10 years ago. But since then, neither the Traffic Regulations nor the Code of Administrative Offenses have received any revolutionary changes. Unless the size of fines has increased and punishments have appeared in the form of deprivation of “rights”, administrative arrests, etc. As a summary, let’s say that presenting video evidence to a violator is not the duty of a traffic police officer on the road, but simply a way to nip in the bud possible disputes with him on the road. theme "guilty or not guilty"

The grounds on which video recording and photography of traffic violations are carried out

The installation of video surveillance systems on roads is a forced innovation, the purpose of which is to reduce the number of car accidents. Video recording of traffic violations is carried out taking into account the requirements prescribed in the relevant legislative acts. According to official statistics, a third of all car accidents occur as a result of exceeding the speed limit on dangerous sections of roads. Thanks to the installation of photo and video surveillance cameras, traffic violators began to be punished much more often.

Legislative basis for recording road accidents

The video recording system for traffic violations operates in accordance with two articles prescribed in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation:

Article 26.8. The legislative act specifies the requirements for video recording of violations that can be used on the roads. Special equipment means photo and video cameras, devices for recording vehicle speed and other equipment that has passed metrological testing. The driver’s guilt can be proven if traffic violations were recorded using certified devices.
Article 2.6.1. The legislative act confirms the legality of the use of video and photography cameras by traffic police officers. Technical means record not only the speed of the vehicle at the time of violation of traffic rules, but also the markings on the road. When cameras record crossings of a solid lane or perform maneuvers on dangerous sections of the road, the driver will bear administrative responsibility.

In accordance with the current laws of the Russian Federation, a special sign in the form of a camera is installed in the area of video recording.

In case of violation of traffic rules on the road, which were recorded by a camera, they are guided by the following legislative acts:

GOSTs R 57144-2016 and R 57145-2016 – on video and photo recording devices;
current editions of traffic regulations;
Code of Administrative Offenses section 4, articles 2, 6, 12, 26, 28, 30 and 32;
regulations of traffic police officers in accordance with Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs No. 664 of October 20, 2017.

According to statistics, the installation of security cameras on dangerous sections of the road has already yielded results. Over the past year, the number of major and minor car accidents has decreased by 15-18%.

What violations are recorded by video cameras?

The video recording system for traffic violations is equipped with devices that determine the speed of movement and the intersection of vehicles with road markings. The cameras recognize many administrative violations of drivers:

speeding;
driving into the oncoming lane or onto the side of the road;
overtaking vehicles on turns;
failure to comply with traffic rules at intersections;
stopping a vehicle under prohibitory signs;
vehicle movement at a red traffic light;
stopping at a traffic light behind the stop line;
hitting a pedestrian crossing area when stopping;
performing prohibited maneuvers;
going to the “waffle iron” during a traffic jam;
turning the vehicle from the outermost lane;
unfastened seat belt;
entering the lane for special categories of transport;
ignoring signs prohibiting movement.

Due to the promising nature of the project, photo and video surveillance cameras are constantly being improved. Therefore, the list of registered violations will soon expand.

Fines from cameras

Typically, video surveillance systems are installed on dangerous and busy sections of the road. Therefore, the likelihood of receiving “chain letters” is relatively low. In accordance with the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, Part 3 of Art. 1.5, the driver is not required to prove his innocence in the event of an administrative violation. But in the same regulatory legal act there is a clause that states that the presumption of innocence does not apply if the violation is recorded by a camera or other licensed equipment.

There is a difference between fines that are issued by traffic police officers and those that are recorded by a video surveillance system. The following rules apply to security cameras:

Regardless of the seriousness of the violations, the driver is not deprived of his right to drive a vehicle;
if the article provides for the deprivation of a driver’s license, the offender is issued the maximum fine;
For relatively minor violations, a minimal fine is issued.

Amounts of fines when an offense is recorded by a video surveillance system

Many drivers do not like the innovations associated with the installation of security cameras. But in reality, none of the violations recorded by the camera threaten the car owner with deprivation of his driver’s license.

How is a decision made?

When a violation is recorded by a camera, traffic police officers determine the vehicle number in the traffic police database. Then an administrative violation report is drawn up, after which the car owner receives a notification from the traffic police. It contains information about:

car model and make;
vehicle registration number;
photo of the offense;
the amount of the fine;
the essence of the violation, indicating the article of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with current legislation, the fine must be paid within 60 days. If the letter is ignored, the owner of the vehicle will be prosecuted or the fine will be increased. It is paid in different ways:

On the State Services website. A personal account is created on the website indicating all the necessary information - passport details, phone number, etc. The fine is paid electronically from an online wallet or bank card.
In offline branches of Russian banks. You just need to deposit the required amount through an ATM or go to the cashier. If you are registered in online banking, you can pay the fine without leaving your home.

Fines issued by the traffic police must be paid within 60 days. Delay may result in administrative penalties and additional charges.

How to challenge a fine

If the driver is confident of his innocence, he can appeal the decision of the traffic police within 10 days. To avoid such situations, experts advise purchasing personal video recorders. In this case, you can use your footage as evidence of innocence.

How to appeal decisions of traffic police officers:

if you disagree with the claims and fines presented, you must send a complaint to the relevant authorities, attaching evidence refuting the fact of the offense;
the application is submitted to the official who made the decision;
The traffic police officer sends the application to the court.

Security cameras sometimes malfunction. At the moment a violation is recorded, the driver does not always actually break the law. Sometimes video surveillance systems record speeds that cannot be real - 250-320 km/h.

Can a driver get a fine for taking photos from citizens’ personal cameras?

Photo and video materials provided by witnesses to traffic violations are considered by the traffic police as evidence of the car owner’s guilt. In accordance with paragraph 4 of part 1 of Article 28.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, offenses can be recorded using any devices that are equipped with photo and video cameras.

Photo and video recording of traffic violations using gadgets does not provide comprehensive information about the incident. It is impossible to determine the speed of a car from video footage, but it is possible to identify:

entry to a pedestrian crossing;
intersection of a solid line;
stopping under a prohibiting sign;
driving at a red traffic light, etc.

Civil means of video recording of violations are imperfect, but can serve as a reason to initiate proceedings for an administrative offense.

In order for the video materials provided by citizens to be accepted for consideration by the traffic police inspector, you need to draw up an application indicating:

personal data (full name, phone number);
time and place of the offense;
the essence of the administrative crime (driving in the oncoming lane, driving onto the side of the road);
license plates, color and make of the car.

Many citizens refuse to help law enforcement agencies because they do not want to waste precious time. Witnesses to road accidents are often called to the traffic police department to confirm the veracity of the information provided.

How to avoid being caught on camera

Not wanting to comply with traffic rules and pay fines, drivers use tricks to hide from the big-eyed vehicles. Despite the constant improvement of cameras, some motorists manage to fool video surveillance systems.

How to avoid security cameras:

Finishing the sign. Cunning drivers add numbers to the license plate, so in case of claims they refer to data discrepancies.
Net. A metal mesh is attached to the registration plate of the car, which makes it impossible for the camera to identify the numbers.
Spray. An aerosol is applied to license plates, which prevents the camera from recognizing the signs on the plate.
Infrared frame. A strip with infrared lamps is attached around the perimeter behind the license plate. Because of them, the DVR cannot recognize signs in the dark.

Many methods of disguising registration plates actually work, making them unrecognizable to CCTV cameras. But if on the way you meet a traffic police officer, then get ready to pay a fine for unreadable license plates.

To avoid problems, it is recommended to simply follow traffic rules and not reinvent the wheel. So the money and nerves will be intact. If a motorist receives a “chain letter,” he can appeal the decision if photo or video materials are not attached to the charge. It is impossible to prove the fact of speeding without appropriate data.

Hidden cameras in traffic lights - truth or myth?

Some drivers, frightened by the omnipotence of CCTV cameras, claim that they are even installed in traffic lights. This is done to record many violations:

collision with a pedestrian zone;
driving on a red traffic light;
driving with seat belts unfastened;
talking on the phone while the vehicle is moving;
crossing the stop line, etc.

The question of installing cameras in traffic lights was forwarded to the organization TsOOD, which is engaged in the direct installation of video surveillance systems on the roads. There the information is refuted.

DVRs are installed only in certain sections of roads in agreement with traffic police officers.

Video recording of traffic violations is a preventive measure, the purpose of which is to reduce the number of accidents on the roads. Photo and video materials arriving on the server of the executive service are processed automatically. If you receive a letter from the traffic police, the driver can appeal the officers’ decision and demand evidence confirming the authenticity of the video materials.

Should there be video recording of traffic violations by the traffic police?

I was recently fined for running a red light through a controlled pedestrian crossing, the traffic light for which is installed approximately 7-10 meters after the start of the intersection.

Here is one of the traps for drivers - there are 3 traffic lights in a row at once and their signals change simultaneously:

1st - beginning of the intersection

2nd - end of the intersection

3rd - pedestrian crossing approximately 7-10 meters after the 2nd traffic light.

My version is that I drove through the intersection when the green light was flashing, and the pedestrian crossing (3rd traffic light) went through the yellow one. When I crossed the stop line in front of the 3rd traffic light, the yellow traffic light just turned on.

I told the inspector that I drove on a yellow light, but he told me that he wouldn’t even stop me for driving on a yellow one. He did not present any other evidence of my guilt.

Question No. 1 - should there be video recording of the violation in this case?

In the absence of evidence of my innocence, I had to agree to the violation (the DVR in my car was turned off). As a result, I tried to read the protocol filled out in illegible handwriting, “made out” the words “I drove through a prohibiting traffic light” and signed it.

But already at home, upon careful reading, I noticed that in the violation report they wrote to me that I drove out and drove through an INTERSECTION (and not a controlled pedestrian crossing) at a prohibitory traffic light.

Although the article for both violations is the same - 12.p.1 (Running a red light), but in the description of the violation I am charged with something that I did not do, because I passed the intersection with the green light flashing.

Passing an intersection on a red light, in my opinion, seems to me to be a more serious violation than passing a controlled pedestrian crossing on a red light and may affect the decision of judges in the future. For example, whether to deprive the driver of a license for a repeated violation (which can also be issued for driving on yellow or even on a flashing green light) or issue a fine of 5,000 rubles.

Is it possible to challenge this protocol? If not, does it make sense to at least change the wording of the violation?