Not that part of it: how a drunk driver of a tractor unit escaped punishment
The qualification of a traffic violation under an incorrect article of the Administrative Code may be the basis for the cancellation of the decision in an administrative case. This is the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Due to mistakes made by traffic police and judges, the drunk driver was eventually not punished, lawyers and experts say. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.
Without a license on a motor block
In May last year, in one of the villages of the Vologda region, traffic police officers stopped Ifanov (surname changed. — Izvestia), who operated the Neva motor block. During the inspection, it turned out that the citizen was driving drunk. An administrative case was initiated against Ifanov under Part 1 of Article 12.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation "Driving a vehicle by a driver in a state of intoxication", subsequently the materials were submitted to the court. During further investigation, it turned out that Ifanov did not have a driver's license and had never received one. As a result, the magistrate's court fined him 30,000 rubles (the sanction in effect at the time of the offense).
Citizen Ifanov appealed the decision first to the district Court and then to the Third Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction. However, these instances upheld the decision of the justice of the peace. Ifanov filed a complaint with the Supreme Court.
The situation cannot be worsened
After reviewing the case file, the Supreme Court concluded that both the traffic police and the lower courts had incorrectly qualified Ifanov's act. In particular, according to paragraph 13 of Resolution No. 20 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 25, 2019, when a person does not have the right to drive a vehicle and drives it while intoxicated, his actions should be qualified under Part 3 of Article 12.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation "Driving a vehicle by a driver who is intoxicated and does not have the right to drive vehicles or deprived of the right to drive vehicles".
"Thus, the illegal act committed by Ifanov does not constitute an administrative offense under Part 1 of Article 12.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, and entails administrative responsibility under Part 3 of Article 12.8 of the said Code," the Supreme Court said in a ruling.
However, since this part of this article provides for a more severe punishment (administrative arrest for up to 15 days), "retraining Ifanov's actions in this case is impossible, as it will lead to a deterioration of his situation, which is unacceptable," the Supreme Court noted.
It is also impossible to initiate a new administrative case on this offense, since the statute of limitations has expired.
Taking into account all these circumstances, the Supreme Court decided to cancel the decisions of the lower instances, and to terminate the proceedings against Ifanov.
According to the law
From the point of view of legislation, the Supreme Court made the right decision, but a formal one, says Sergey Radko, a lawyer for the Freedom of Choice movement. The reclassification of the act should not worsen the situation of the person being brought to administrative responsibility, he noted.
— The third part of Article 12.8 is considered more severe than the first. As a sanction, it provides not only for a fine of 30 thousand rubles in force at the time of the offense, but also for administrative arrest for up to 15 days. And even if the driver had been fined exactly the same for this part, it would formally be considered a more severe punishment," Sergei Radko told Izvestia.
Initially, the mistake was made by the traffic police, who issued materials about the offense, who did not check whether the driver had a license at all, and as a result incorrectly qualified his actions, the lawyer noted. The magistrate could correct it by returning the case file to the police. However, neither he nor the judges of higher instances noticed this flaw, the lawyer concluded.
At the same time, Sergei Radko noted, the courts do not have a single position on whether a motor block should be considered a vehicle and whether the person driving it should have special rights. So, in 2022, the Supreme Court did not recognize such a technique as a vehicle, but in 2024, it also decided that the tillerblock was still a vehicle. Because in a particular case, the case involves a model of a tillerblock, which, according to the technical specifications, has a 224 cc motor. Perhaps the Russian Armed Forces also recognized her as a vehicle, the lawyer suggested.
The price of error
Any drunk person on the road is a potential criminal, regardless of what he is driving: a car, motorcycle, tractor, SIM, tillerblock or any other equipment, said Valery Soldunov, a member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, chairman of the All—Russian Society of Motorists. Such drivers should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law, he noted. However, this must necessarily happen in strict compliance with the norms and procedures established by law, the expert emphasized.
— Due to incorrectly issued documents, the drunk driver actually did not suffer any punishment. This is not even a mistake by those who compiled and reviewed them, we are talking about negligence here," Valery Soldunov told Izvestia.
In this case, unfortunately, we are talking about the superficial performance of their duties by police officers, said Igor Morzharetto, a member of the presidium of the Public Council under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.
— When preparing the materials, the traffic police had no trouble checking whether the person actually has a driver's license. It's a matter of a couple of minutes — just log into the database. Why this was not done remains a question,— Igor Morzharetto told Izvestia.
Since the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower authorities, the driver of the tractor unit has the right to apply to the department of the State Traffic Inspectorate, whose employees issued the protocol, with a request for a refund of the fine paid, Sergei Radko noted.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
