Lawyer dismisses traffic police ban on filming them
According to Letter M-387 from the State Automobile Inspection, the rules have now changed and a person videoing the actions of traffic police officers will face 15 administrative arrest (i.e. imprisonment). through 15 days ad the traffic police,
According to Yurliga lawyer Vadim Volodarsky, holding people liable under Article 185 of the Code of Administrative Offences in such a situation is fairly problematical.
He stresses that liability under this article arises only if the actual demand or instruction from a police officer is lawful. How lawful can it be in such a situation? You cannot speak of breach of inviolability of private life in the case of an official, in this case a traffic officer, “At work his life is not private.” Mr Volodarsky points out that the Constitutional Court took this position on 20 January 2012 in its judgement. In its judgement, the Court stated that with respect to the use of audio and video recordings and photos not all information can be protected by the law.
The lawyer considers the protection provided private life by Article 32 of the Constitution, but believes there can be no question that video recordings of a traffic police officer carrying out his duties violate his right to privacy. The above-mentioned judgement stipulated that private footage, as well as CCTV footage can be used as evidence in a criminal case. If such video footage was by definition unlawful, then it could not be used as evidence.
Mr Volodarsky also cites Article 19 of the Constitution stipulating that “Bodies of state power and bodies of local self-government and their officials are obliged to act only on the grounds, within the limits of authority, and in the manner envisaged by the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine.”
He says that the chances of such cases succeeding in the courts are extremely doubtful.
From a report at