CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPICAL ERRORS MADE BY POLICE OFFICERS WHEN FORMING THE EVIDENCE BASE WHEN DOCUMENTING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCES

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of issues of evidence in proceedings in cases of administrative offenses. Based on the analysis of court decisions, typical shortcomings in the law enforcement practice of the National Police of Ukraine in the formation of the evidentiary base were identified. A systematization of typical errors in the formation of the evidentiary base made by police officers when documenting administrative offenses was carried out, among which the following were identified: a protocol on an administrative offense drawn up in violation of the requirements of Article 256 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and the Instructions for the Preparation of Materials on Administrative Offenses; the absence of any proper and admissible evidence that would confirm the fact of the commission of a specific administrative offense by individuals; the presence in the case materials of written explanations of witnesses who were not questioned in court and did not confirm the guilt of the person being held administratively liable; evidence obtained in violation of the norms of current legislation was added to the case materials; improperly attached copies of documents were attached to the case materials; the case materials include evidence (documents, videos, etc.) that is not specified in the administrative offense report; the documents attached to the case materials do not contain the required details or are drawn up incorrectly; the evidence attached to the case materials does not relate to a specific case or confirms the existence or absence of circumstances that are subject to proof in the event of a person committing a certain type of administrative offense; the video recording from the police officer’s body camera is not continuous or does not allow establishing the circumstances of the offense; the pho- tographs attached as evidence do not contain information about the place and time of filming, and therefore are recognized by the courts as inadequate evidence; in the case materials on administrative offenses provided for in Article 124 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, there is an incorrectly drawn up diagram of a traffic accident as evidence.It is emphasized that these shortcomings lead to the recognition of evidence as inadmissible, inappropriate and insuffi- cient, which complicates the consideration of cases and makes it impossible to bring offenders to justice.