Police failed to prove legality of the stop: when a driver can refuse a medical examination — position of the appellate court
The Kharkiv Appellate Court canceled the ruling holding the driver administratively liable for refusing to undergo a drug intoxication examination under Part 1 of Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and closed the case proceedings.
The court concluded that the case materials do not contain proper and admissible evidence of lawful grounds for stopping the vehicle in accordance with Article 35 of the Law "On the National Police." The police officers' explanations that they received information about the possible intoxication of the driver were also not confirmed.
The appellate court noted that under such circumstances, the driver was not obliged to comply with further police demands, and the procedural documents drawn up after the stop cannot be considered proper and admissible evidence of his guilt. Therefore, the decision of the court of first instance was canceled, and the case was closed due to the absence of the event and elements of an administrative offense.
Circumstances of the case
According to the case materials, on December 19, 2024, in Kharkiv, patrol officers stopped a Chevrolet vehicle. The protocol stated that the driver showed signs of drug intoxication, namely behavior inconsistent with the situation and unnatural pallor of the face. The driver refused to undergo a medical examination by a narcologist, after which a protocol was drawn up against him under Part 1 of Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
The Slobidsky District Court of Kharkiv found the driver guilty, imposed a fine of 17,000 UAH, deprived him of the right to drive vehicles for one year, and collected a court fee.
Disagreeing with this decision, the defender appealed the ruling, indicating that the court of first instance did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case and did not verify the legality of the police officers' actions.
What the appellate court established
Reviewing the case materials, the appellate court noted that they do not contain justification for the reason for stopping the vehicle.
The court recalled that Article 35 of the Law of Ukraine "On the National Police" establishes an exhaustive list of grounds for stopping a vehicle and imposes on the police officer the duty to inform the driver of the specific reason for the stop with a detailed description of the relevant grounds.
From the body camera video, it is evident that the police officers did not inform the driver of any of the legally provided grounds for stopping but only stated that they received information about the possible driving of the vehicle by a person in a state of intoxication.
At the same time, the case materials do not contain evidence that the driver violated traffic rules. The inspector’s report also does not specify a concrete ground for stopping the vehicle.
Moreover, in response to a lawyer’s inquiry, the Patrol Police Department reported that on December 19, 2024, no information was received by the National Police’s information and communication system regarding the possible intoxication of the driver of the Chevrolet Lacetti. Thus, the police officers' explanations about receiving such information were not supported by documentation.
The appellate court also noted that according to Article 251 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the obligation to collect evidence lies with persons authorized to draw up protocols on administrative offenses.
Court conclusions
Based on the review of case 641/139/25, the appellate court concluded that the police officers did not prove with proper and admissible evidence the existence of grounds provided by Article 35 of the Law of Ukraine "On the National Police" that would grant them the right to lawfully stop the vehicle.
Under such circumstances, as the court noted, the driver was not obliged to comply with further police demands, and all procedural documents drawn up against him cannot be considered proper and admissible evidence of guilt in committing the administrative offense under Part 1 of Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
The appellate court also noted that the court of first instance incompletely and one-sidedly investigated the circumstances of the case, prematurely concluded the person’s guilt, and did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Administrative Offenses regarding a full, comprehensive, and objective clarification of all circumstances.
In view of this, the appellate instance satisfied the defender’s appeal, canceled the district court’s ruling, and closed the case proceedings under paragraph 1 of Article 247 of the Code of Administrative Offenses — due to the absence of the event and elements of an administrative offense. The appellate court’s ruling is final and not subject to 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 informed about the most important events.
