Video recording of the moment of communication with traffic police officers has become a common procedure for many drivers. Indeed, in the event of a violation of the law by an employee, the video recording will become the only and indisputable evidence. And everything would be fine, but in August 2017, Order No. 664 and the revised Administrative Regulations were issued, against the background of which, the clarity in the question - “Is it possible to film a traffic police inspector?” was significantly reduced. Therefore, in this article we will try to understand this issue, and we will understand the intricacies of the legislative framework associated with it.
And so, the Administrative Regulations underwent fundamental changes in 2017, and the issues of video filming were spelled out in it in such a way that only one thing became clear: it is prohibited to interfere with the video filming of the driver by the traffic police inspector! As for a similar process, but from the driver’s side, the wording has become extremely vague and completely incomprehensible, and this norm has been moved to a new paragraph. Against this background, rumors even appeared that filming traffic police inspectors was prohibited. However, this is not the case; to do this, just look at the table below and think about the changes prescribed in the new regulations.
In fact, the changes affected only video recording carried out by the traffic police officers themselves, and if previously the driver was prohibited from interfering with video filming, now we are only talking about filming administrative procedures by the employees themselves (such as vehicle inspection, examination for intoxication, and others).
As for drivers, in the matter of video recording of traffic police officers, it is necessary to be guided by other regulations. There are two such documents!
The first is the Federal Law “On the Police,” which provides for the openness of police activities in the implementation of human rights functions:
The activities of the police are open to society to the extent that this does not contradict the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation on criminal proceedings, on proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, on operational investigative activities, on the protection of state and other secrets protected by law, and also does not violate rights of citizens, public associations and organizations.
In fact, the principle of openness gives you the full right to film a traffic police officer, so all the actions of the inspector when he stopped you, draws up a protocol against you or issues a resolution are possible.
The second document that can be used as a guide when filming the actions of a traffic police officer is the Federal Law “On Information”, in particular article three, which also provides for the openness of the activities of government agencies:
Legal regulation of relations arising in the field of information, information technology and information protection is based on the following principles:
....
Openness of information about the activities of state bodies and local governments and free access to such information, except in cases established by federal laws;
Both laws considered, in this case, are federal, i.e. their authority and significance are higher than other legal acts, and the same Order No. 664 has a much lower priority, even if it contained a direct ban on filming a traffic police officer.
To summarize, we can say the following: it is possible to film a traffic police inspector in 2018!
The rule obliging employees not to interfere with the use of recording equipment has disappeared from the new regulations for the work of the road patrol service.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs is going to prohibit road users from taking photos and videos of their employees. This follows from the new administrative regulations prepared by the legal department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The document has been undergoing public discussions since January 2017. Amendments were made to it; in particular, an important clause concerning the inspector’s duty not to interfere with the use of photo, video and sound recording equipment by a road user was removed. In this form, the document has been sent to the Ministry of Justice and can be signed in the near future. Representatives of the Federation of Car Owners of Russia sounded the alarm: according to them, there are other changes in the new regulations that significantly increase the powers of inspectors and reduce the rights of drivers. Details are in the material of Realnoe Vremya.
Public discussion is not in favor of the public
The new regulations for the work of traffic police officers were supposed to come into force in April 2017, but they decided to slow down the document - from January 31 to March 1, it underwent public discussion on the federal portal of draft regulatory legal acts and an independent examination. The result was a revised version of the administrative regulations, from which clause 10.13 disappeared, which stated that “employees in the performance of public functions are obliged not to interfere with the use of photo, video and sound recording equipment by a road user, unless prohibited by law, if there is prohibition of informing a road user of its reasons.” In this form, the document was sent to the Russian Ministry of Justice.
The Federation of Car Owners of Russia sounded the alarm: “When I saw that this norm had disappeared, I immediately wrote to the Ministry of Justice. Despite the fact that public hearings took place, the history of 2009 shows that there is still a chance to return it, because then the Ministry of Justice included the requirement for video recording. There is a chance that this time they will pay attention to this and ask the Ministry of Internal Affairs to return this norm,” says Dmitry Klevtsov, vice-president of the Federation of Motorists of Russia.
As follows from Dmitry Klevtsov’s communication with representatives of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the norm protecting the rights of drivers disappeared from the document not by chance and not due to a technical error. Photo reporter64.ru
It was not possible to obtain an official comment from the traffic police by the time of publication of Realnoe Vremya. However, as follows from Dmitry Klevtsov’s communication with representatives of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the norm protecting the rights of drivers disappeared from the document not by chance and not due to a technical error. He contacted them when he discovered missing points in the new version of the administrative regulations.
The developer, a representative of the legal department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, explained this by saying that there is no need to enter the clause separately, because the regulations were written in 2009, when there was no law on the police. In 2011, a police law appeared, but there is no clear prohibition on obstructing video filming. It says that when limiting filming, an employee must refer to the law. Also, they say, we have a federal law stating that a citizen has the right to receive and disseminate information in any legal way, there is Part 3 of Art. 15 of the Constitution, which states that any ban must be published in the form of a normative legal act. But proving all this to a traffic police officer is a long story. If you look at the practice of the patrol service, which works according to the law on the police, then when problems arise and a citizen takes out his phone, the employee prohibits him. The citizen says that according to the police law, you must refer to a regulatory document that would prohibit filming, to which he is answered that “you can appeal my actions to a higher authority,” Dmitry Klevtsov tells Realnoe Vremya’s correspondent.
“I thought that the protocols were drawn up against oppositionists detained at rallies, but it turned out...”
The absence of a rule obliging the traffic police officer not to interfere with video filming will lead to abuse of power, Klevtsov believes: “Officers will prohibit video filming and thereby deprive the driver of an alternative source of evidence.” At the same time, traffic police inspectors, according to the new regulations, retain the right “to use information systems, video and audio equipment, film and photographic equipment, as well as other technical and special means that do not cause harm to the life and health of citizens.”
Police officers are given broad powers to replace witnesses and witnesses in administrative procedures by video recording using special technical means or other means with a video recording function. This wording means that if a police officer does not have technical equipment in the form of a video recorder or a chest-mounted video camera, then he can use a personal phone during administrative procedures. But personal funds do not have a function of protection against erasure, and if this record is deleted for some reason, then the citizen will not have the opportunity to prove his innocence, says Dmitry Klevtsov.
“This wording means that if a police officer does not have a technical means in the form of a video recorder, a chest-mounted video camera, then he can use his personal phone during administrative procedures. And personal funds do not have an anti-erasure function,” says Dmitry Klevtsov. Photo nashkamensk.ru
Attempts by a driver to film a conversation with a traffic police officer can lead to dire consequences - the inspector may draw up a report for violating Art. 19.3 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Disobedience to a lawful order of an official of a body exercising state supervision (control), municipal control.”
We carried out judicial monitoring on the practice of applying this article, I thought that the protocols were drawn up against oppositionists detained at rallies, but it turned out that most of the violators were drivers. You read the court decision: everywhere it is described that the driver was driving, he was stopped by a traffic police officer. He started filming, the employee forbade him - and now art. 19.3. And this measure provides for 15 days. As a rule, such a punishment is not given - 99 percent of such articles end in a fine of 500 rubles,” says Klevtsov.
All the best for the guest: a souvenir entry will be left only for foreigners
The new regulations contain other changes that significantly increase the powers of inspectors and reduce the rights of drivers. Thus, the requirement to save video recordings is provided only if a foreign citizen with appropriate “immunity” is suspected of an administrative offense.
That is, according to the letter of the law, there is no requirement for citizens of the Russian Federation to take measures to preserve video recordings? - Klevtsov is perplexed.
According to a representative of the FAR, the current regulations were good; they spelled out a lot of administrative procedures, starting with the rules for registering an accident, ending with the performance of duty. “It was enough that the traffic police officers read it and knew it so as not to violate the rights of citizens.” Moreover, the regulations could be extended to other departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
For two years now, we have been writing letters to the Ministry of Internal Affairs with a request to introduce into the regulations rules for citizens taking photos and videos in police departments where citizens have access. It’s clear that you can’t film in the weapons room, but there’s no public access there,” says Dmitry Klevtsov.
It must be admitted that the adoption of the new regulations will affect not only the rights of drivers; the Internet will also lose a lot. On social networks and YouTube there are hundreds of thousands of funny and not so funny videos about car owners communicating with traffic police officers - this is the most popular content, gaining millions of views. The rich collection can only be viewed with nostalgia.
Daria Turtseva
In modern times of advanced technology, there is no person who is not immortalized in photo and video materials. Citizens capture personal memorable events through videography and appear in music videos and films. If video shooting is done on a voluntary basis, the process is pleasant and exciting. But citizens find themselves under the gun of cameras and not of their own free will.
It happens that a person gets into the frame without wanting to, and in some cases is not even aware that the video is being filmed. Most often this happens in public places. The law states that claims against the operator will not be justified on the basis of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In accordance with this article, a citizen has the right to use any means to obtain and produce information. In particular, he is allowed to film any materials in public places. The law does not allow directly interfering with the process of video filming, threatening the operator, and, moreover, taking physical influence on him.
Video recording of officials
Police, military, and officials are categorically against video recording. According to the law, they do not have the right to such a ban. Officials on duty can be photographed and filmed without hindrance.
According to Article 3 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Combating Corruption”, adopted on December 25, 2008 N 273-FZ, as part of the anti-corruption campaign, the activities of state and district management organizations must be transparent and open. The law states that an official who interferes with video filming will be subject to administrative liability. If the video captured an official crime of this employee (for example, receiving or giving a bribe) or violated the law in some other way, his opposition to the operator in the future will be regarded as hindering the investigation.
The law provides for the authority of citizens to personally monitor the quality of work and integrity of officials. Any person by law has the absolute right to videotape, observing representatives of state authorities, federal bodies, party members and officials when they are on duty. A citizen can act in this way both in personal and public interests. The legal right is secured by paragraph 3 of Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 31, 1993 No. 2234, which has not lost its relevance in our time.
Law on video recording of individuals
As mentioned above, the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not prohibit video filming of any person, even without his personal consent, if the video filming was made in a public place. The Civil Code similarly protects the rights to collect this type of information.
Both professional and amateur video shooting is permitted in public places. Journalists and ordinary citizens have the right to organize video recording. Photographs or videos of a person taken in a public place cannot be regarded by law as an encroachment on the secrets of a citizen’s private life. The person who received and published such materials cannot be held accountable, even if there is a real desire to harm the reputation of the citizen filmed.
Filming children under 14 years of age is subject to the same laws. It is possible to photograph and film a child, but there is a risk of encountering misunderstandings on the part of the parents. A minor citizen can give independent consent to video and photo sessions only from the age of 14.
The law banning video filming in museums, theaters and concerts is nothing more than a myth. Filming people against the background of works of art that are subject to copyright is acceptable if the work in question is not the main purpose of the photograph. By making a video recording of a full concert or performance and its participants for personal non-commercial purposes, a citizen, from the point of view of the law, does not risk anything.
When does the ban apply?
On December 18, 2006, Federal Law No. 230-FZ introduced Art. 152.1 “images of a person.” According to the text of the article, the law prohibits personal or commercial use of the video in the absence of written permission from the citizens appearing in it.
The law prohibiting non-consensual filming does not apply to video that:
- was created in the interests of the state;
- is part of the news block;
- the specified citizen is not the main target of the video, his face was included in the frame by accident;
- received at public events, such as a concert, strike, etc.;
- is material about police officers in execution.
There are a number of provisions that prohibit filming people and objects in the following places:
- In court buildings, correctional institutions (Arbitration Procedural Code, Art. 11, Part 7);
- At State Duma meetings, if they are not open;
- At military and other strategic sites;
- At customs and border service points within 5 km from the border, according to the order of the Russian Federation of September 10, 2002.
Video filming in the specified places can only be carried out with the permission of authorized persons.
Punishment
The law does not provide for penalties for filming videos in public places. According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a citizen who collects video materials in places open to public use does not intrude into the personal lives of other citizens.
However, if the resulting video in some way defames, humiliates or insults the person appearing on it, this citizen has the right to demand that the video be removed from public access. In some cases, when it is possible to prove the deliberate collection of information about a specific person for the purpose of defamation, the initiator can be prosecuted under Article 138 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. To do this, you need to file a complaint with your local police department.
Read the latest edition to find out more information about this issue.
Today, October 20, a new administrative regulation for traffic police officers (order No. 664) comes into force, which provoked a fair amount of hype in the media. We decided to find out whether inspectors were really banned from filming and whether it’s true that you can now stop a car to check documents anywhere.
The inspector can stop the driver to check documents outside the stationary post, but must justify the need in any case
Post finished
- What is the reason for the stop? - competent drivers like to ask when an inspector slows them down.
So, previously, when stopping outside a checkpoint, a traffic police officer could not refer to the need to check documents. Now he can. But has anything essentially changed? No, our experts say.
The inspector had the opportunity to stop outside the stationary post before, and any more or less savvy employee could easily comply with the formalities of the regulations.
In the new regulations, at first glance, the powers are even expanded, but in fact, a stop to check documents must still be justified.
The requirements for checking documents have only become more stringent: now, whether at a stationary post or outside it, the inspector needs grounds for this, which are listed in paragraph 106 of the new regulations, explains auto expert Yuri Panchenko.
Without going into details, the reasons can be divided into three groups: identifying signs of traffic violations, the presence of orientations or carrying out activities.
Simply put, it is now possible to stop to check documents, but the reasons for stopping a driver are essentially the same! The inspector only needs to announce the identification of signs of traffic violations or refer to a special operation - and the ceremonial part will be completed.
This supposed ban on stopping cars outside of stationary checkpoints was most often appealed to by drunk drivers, trying to ruin the case. But I don’t remember any court accepting their argument, even if the inspector violated the requirements of the regulations,” explains auto lawyer Lev Voropaev. - Understand that courts extremely rarely take into account the mentioned regulations when considering administrative cases against drivers, since the proceedings on them are regulated by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and the procedure for the actions of the inspector is also regulated by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 711, the Law “On Police” ", etc. The topic of the ban on checking documents outside of stationary posts was initially overblown.
Secret signs
But here is a rather interesting aspect discovered by auto expert Yuri Panchenko: in the previous regulations, Art. 57 prohibited the use of automatic fixing devices in places where temporary signs were installed. Now such a ban has disappeared from the regulations.
On the one hand, the authorized person needs to somehow confirm that the temporary sign was actually installed at such and such a time on such and such a section of the road,” comments Yuriy Panchenko. - On the other hand, you can first obtain confirmation of the installation of a temporary sign, for example, from a contractor that is performing repair work, and then impose “automatic” fines, even if the sign is not installed or installed with violations.
Temporary signs have a yellow background, and the previous regulations prohibited photo and video recording of violations in their coverage area
This can give rise to bad practices because temporary signs are often elusive, like happiness. This is not only about deliberate forgery: a temporary sign can fall due to the wind, be stolen or covered by a construction vehicle, but the driver will be able to prove anything in a few weeks only by saving the recording from the dash cam.
In case of violations recorded automatically, it is the driver’s responsibility to prove his own innocence. The presence or absence of temporary signs on the corresponding section of the road at the time of violation will have to be proven by the citizen, and not by the inspector, which, of course, is extremely problematic, says Lev Voropaev.
How to remove an inspector
Another overblown topic is the alleged ban on filming a traffic police inspector. In the previous version of the regulations, the wording was as follows: “An employee must not interfere with the use of video and sound recording equipment by a road user, unless prohibited by law. The employee must inform the road user making the recording about the existence of the prohibition.”
Such a requirement was introduced by the top management of the traffic police after a series of conflicts between drivers and traffic police inspectors, and its motive is clear - to make the work of the traffic police officer transparent.
If the level of conversation has increased, the driver can record its contents on a smartphone - the new regulations do not explicitly allow this, but, importantly, do not prohibit it
Yuri Panchenko believes that the permission to film the inspector has not gone away:
The media are trumpeting that for filming an employee you can get almost Part 1 of Art. 19.3 (“Failure to comply with the legal requirements of the inspector”), which threatens punishment up to and including arrest, is utter nonsense. The absence of direct permission in the administrative regulations does not change anything essentially, because the right to conduct such filming is determined by other laws, in particular, the law “On Information...”. There is no law that would prohibit recording a conversation with an inspector, so filming can be done either covertly or openly. But I would warn you against using hidden special recording equipment, for example, pens with a built-in voice recorder. In Russia, even their acquisition constitutes a criminal offense. You can still film the inspector with a regular smartphone.
Lev Voropaev is confident that the new edition of the regulations will increase the number of controversial situations:
Inspectors had already believed through one of them that it was impossible to remove them, but at least direct permission to do this was contained in the administrative regulations. Now they have removed it, and although this has not changed anything essentially, it is unlikely that ordinary employees will delve into these subtleties. They are more often guided by the information background of the media, where the idea of a ban on filming is being discussed, so I would not be surprised if traffic police officers more often prevent filming.
About “commercial” cameras
In many regions, a practice has developed where video recording systems for violations do not belong to the traffic police. Their operators and owners are specialized companies that work with the traffic police within the framework of the law on public-private and municipal-private partnerships.
In the data processing center from cameras photographing violations
In the new administrative regulations, this approach has been formalized: clause 76 allows the use of technical means, including those belonging to public associations and organizations.
In addition, the cameras must comply with the recently introduced GOST, which is relevant for complexes installed after July 1, 2017.
The best way to get a divorce
“The old regulations, when seizing a fake driver’s license, provided for the issuance of a temporary permit to the driver,” says Yuriy Panchenko. - The new regulations do not provide for the issuance of a temporary permit, and according to paragraph 7.11, a copy of the seized driver’s license is issued if there are signs of forgery. But the seizure of documents is also mentioned in paragraph 219, which is formulated in such a way that it is not necessary to give the driver a copy of the license. I quote: if documents are confiscated, with the exception of the confiscation of a driver’s license, copies are made of them... In practice, this opens a loophole for such a scam: they stop a resting driver somewhere near Krasnodar and say that the license has signs of falsification, due to with what they are confiscated.
And since paragraph 219 does not require the provision of a certified copy, an examination will be carried out, and the driver will not go anywhere. And then he is offered to resolve the issue “amicably.”
The new regulations do not provide for the issuance of a temporary permit
The expert notes that such a divorce is possible, but illegal. Forgery of documents does not constitute an administrative violation, which is discussed in paragraph 219, but a criminal offense, and, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, in this case, providing a copy is mandatory, as stated in paragraph 7.11.
But inspectors can make a fool of the driver that he will be left without a driver’s license when he is away from home,” concludes Yuriy Panchenko. - If this happens, do not give in and demand a certified copy of the document. And if the rights are nevertheless confiscated, and they turn out to be genuine, then go to court for compensation.
Medical examination with delivery
The regulations were supplemented with Article 223, which instructs police officers to deliver the driver from the medical center to his car if medical workers do not confirm the state of intoxication.
By and large, the new regulations are an internal document of the inspection, and they have no direct relation to drivers
Is it necessary to cram the regulations?
The excitement around the new administrative regulations creates the impression that this is almost the main document regulating the relationship between the traffic police officer and the driver. Lev Voropaev explains that its importance is exaggerated:
By and large, this is an internal document of the inspection, and it has no direct relation to drivers. The relevance of the regulations can only be discussed in cases where there is a question of holding the inspector accountable for violations, which in practice does not happen often for obvious reasons. Knowledge of administrative regulations is unlikely to help to terminate a case of an administrative offense against a driver (avoid a fine, deprivation of the right to drive, arrest, etc.). It is not the primary document that would determine the activities of the traffic police, if we are talking about the practice of judicial proceedings in administrative cases against drivers
Yuri Panchenko believes that there are still benefits from knowing the regulations:
He describes all the actions of the inspector and presents an extract from the laws, and even with references to them. When filing a complaint, open the required section of the regulations, rewrite what the inspector was obliged to do, but did not, but place a link not to the regulations themselves, but to the laws mentioned there, he sums up.
Nowadays there are many questions circulating on the Internet and there are active discussions about whether it is possible to film a traffic police officer while on duty or not. The fact is that a new administrative regulation dated October 20, 2017 was recently adopted, in which the clause prohibiting an inspector from preventing him from filming with a phone or video camera was removed. After this, many traffic police officers breathed a sigh of relief - they say they removed it, which means it’s impossible! And there were even several cases recorded where a driver was charged under Article 19.3 “Disobedience” for refusing to comply with a government official’s request to remove the camera. The drivers immediately began to grumble - how could this be? How to deal with unscrupulous traffic cops?! In fact, with the adoption of the new regulations, nothing has changed on this topic. You can still film traffic police officers on duty absolutely freely! And that's why:
- Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation gives us the right to freely receive, transmit and distribute information in any legal way.
- Article 152.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation tells us that there is no need to ask for any permission to film a traffic police inspector if you are in a public place.
- Article 8 of Federal Law No. 3-FZ “On Police” enshrines the principle of openness and publicity, which means that police activities are open to society to the extent that this does not contradict the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation. And this is not to mention the fact that the president himself officially stated that police work is transparent!
The final point on the question of whether it is possible to film traffic police officers while on duty and whether video recording of traffic cops is legal was put by the head of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, General Mikhail Yuryevich Chernikov. His verdict is unequivocal and clear - it can be filmed. Here is his official response:
According to his letter, there are currently no provisions allowing a police officer to prohibit a road user from using photo or video recording equipment. Of course, if the shooting is taking place in a public place. Therefore, the traffic police inspector does not have the right to prohibit drivers or ordinary passers-by from filming him at his post or while performing official duties.
If a traffic police officer of the Russian Federation prohibits him from taking a photo or camera, ask him to introduce himself, in accordance with clause 5 of Article 5 of the Federal Law “On Police”, and also try to fix his badge. After this, open the traffic police website (link) and write a complaint against this police officer outlining all the details. For his arbitrariness he will suffer a well-deserved punishment!
Can a traffic police officer film on camera?!
Now let's talk a little about the other side of the coin, namely, whether traffic police officers, while on duty, can film road users - drivers and pedestrians - with a photo or video camera. Of course it can. He is a citizen of the Russian Federation, just like you. This means that Article 29 of the Constitution and Article 152 of the Civil Code are also relevant for him. Even if the driver is in a car, you can film him, because the street where his car is parked or driving is also a public place. Police officers also have the right to protection from inappropriate citizens and this must be taken into account!
