A police officer cannot hold TruCAM in hands — driver managed to cancel speeding fine through court
The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal canceled the patrol police's decision to impose a speeding fine and closed the administrative offense case. The panel of judges concluded that in this case, measuring the vehicle's speed using the TruCAM device held by the police officer in his hands does not comply with the requirements of Article 40 of the Law of Ukraine "On the National Police," and the results obtained in this way cannot be used as proper evidence.
Case circumstances
The driver of a BMW X3 was fined under Part 1 of Article 122 of the Code of Administrative Offenses after a patrol officer in Kyiv recorded the vehicle moving at a speed of 79 km/h in a populated area where the speed limit is 50 km/h. The violation was recorded by the TruCAM laser speed measuring device.
The driver appealed to the court, considering the decision illegal. He argued that the police officer conducted the speed measurement while holding the device in his hands, although Article 40 of the Law of Ukraine "On the National Police," in his opinion, does not provide for such a method of using the technical device. The court of first instance denied the claim, noting that the technical specifications of TruCAM allow its use in handheld mode, and the way the device is held is not decisive for evaluating the evidence.
What the appellate court decided
The key issue in dispute was whether Article 40 of the Law of Ukraine "On the National Police" allows the use of the TruCAM laser speed measuring device in handheld mode.
The appellate court disagreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance. The panel of judges noted that Article 40 of the Law defines the procedure for the use of technical means to detect and record offenses. According to the court, the content of this provision implies that such technical means must be fixed or placed in a manner prescribed by law, in particular along the outer perimeter of roads and buildings. This provision does not establish other methods of their use.
The court emphasized that TruCAM is a technical means for detecting and recording offenses within the meaning of Article 40 of the Law. Since during the speed measurement the device was held in the police officer's hands and was not fixed or placed in the manner prescribed by law, the results of such measurement in this case cannot be considered proper evidence. The court also noted that Article 40 of the Law does not provide for the use of such a technical means by holding it in hands during speed measurement.
In view of this, the appellate court concluded that the court of first instance incorrectly applied the substantive law and did not properly evaluate the evidence, and therefore the decision to impose an administrative penalty is subject to cancellation.
Court decision
The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal canceled the decision of the Halytskyi District Court of Lviv, satisfied the driver's claim, canceled the patrol police's decision to impose a fine, and closed the proceedings in the administrative offense case. Also, in case 461/1766/26, the court ordered the Patrol Police Department to reimburse the plaintiff 1664 UAH of the paid court fee. The decision came into legal force on the day of its adoption, is final, and is not subject to cassation appeal.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.
