Disobedience to a legal order: what is the responsibility for this

Judicial statistics confirm that the number of administrative offenses under Article 23.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, that is, for disobedience to a lawful order or demand of an official in the exercise of his official powers, has increased. What are the most obvious reasons for such actions and what responsibility is now provided for them, in an interview with BelTA, the judge of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Minsk City Court Anastasia Popko told.

- Anastasia Pavlovna, what does the court statistics testify to? Has the number of offenses under Article 24.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses increased significantly?

- Statistical data on the consideration of cases of administrative offenses by the district courts of the city of Minsk indicate an increase in the number of offenses under Article 24.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses - disobedience to a lawful order or demand of an official in the exercise of his official powers. In 2019-2020, the district courts of the capital considered approximately the same number of cases of administrative offenses - 64,304 and 64,242. September 2021, 1972 people were brought to administrative responsibility under Article 24.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. An increase in the number of offenses, along with the need to further improve the legal regulation of administrative-tort relations,

- What responsibility now awaits offenders?

- The sanction of Article 24.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, effective from March 1 this year, provides for the imposition of an administrative penalty on the guilty person in the form of a fine in the amount of 2 to 100 basic units, public works for a period of 8 to 60 hours or administrative arrest for a period of up to 15 days . Previously, this article provided for a fine from 2 to 50 basic units, administrative arrest for up to 15 days. The application of such severe measures of administrative responsibility testifies to the increased danger of the act and classifying it as a gross administrative offense.

- As far as I know, the current legislation provides for criminal liability for such misconduct. Is it possible to explain when a person faces administrative and when criminal liability?

- Illegal acts directed against persons performing managerial functions have a very different "charge" of public danger in their magnitude. So, disobedience, that is, a passive form of refusal to comply with a legal requirement or order of an official in the performance of his official duties, entails administrative responsibility. However, if a person dares to resist an employee of the internal affairs bodies or another person protecting public order, that is, active non-violent resistance (for example, resists, tries to escape during detention, etc.), then his actions are already subject to qualification under Part 1 of Art. .363 of the Criminal Code, the sanction of which provides for penalties in the form of a fine, arrest, restriction of liberty for up to 3 years, imprisonment for the same period.

- Does a person always need to take active actions in order to incur administrative responsibility under Article 24.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses? Is inaction possible?

- If we turn to the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language, disobedience is a refusal to obey, disobedience. The offense in question, as a rule, is expressed in inaction - a clear and deliberate refusal to comply with a legal requirement or order of an official in the exercise of his official powers. In some cases, disobedience can also be expressed in active actions of a person. An example of this is an attempt by a person to flee, destroy the required documents, etc.

- Most often, the administrative process under Article 24.3 begins at the initiative of the internal affairs bodies. What are the most common situations faced by the courts?

- It should be noted that the PIKOAP gives not only officials of the internal affairs bodies the right to initiate an administrative process under Article 24.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. This right is equally vested in officials of other bodies - the State Control Committee, the Ministry of Finance, financial departments (departments) of local executive and administrative bodies, customs, tax, border authorities, etc. As a rule, in cases of administrative offenses considered by the district courts of the city of Minsk the basis for drawing up the protocol is the reports of traffic police officers and the protection of public order about the disobedience of persons who have already committed other offenses and impede the conduct of the administrative process.

- A classic example - the requirement of a traffic police officer or police department to present documents, get out of the car, removal from driving. What rules must be followed in order for such an order to be lawful?

- Every demand or order of an official must be legal. The legality of a demand or order means that it is based on normative legal acts. In addition, such a demand must come from an official in the exercise of his official powers and be addressed to a person who is not subordinate in his service.

The rights and obligations of drivers, traffic police officers and other internal affairs bodies in the field of road traffic are regulated by the laws "On Internal Affairs Bodies of the Republic of Belarus", "On Road Traffic", traffic rules approved by decree No. 551 of November 28, 2005. Clause 12 of the SDA establishes the obligation of the driver to carry and submit certain documents for verification.

In accordance with Article 25 of the law "On the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Belarus", employees of the internal affairs bodies, within their competence, have the right to check with citizens the documents necessary to verify their compliance with the rules, supervision and control over the implementation of which are entrusted to the internal affairs bodies, and if citizens are suspected of committing crimes, administrative offenses - documents proving their identity.

According to article 11 of the law "On Road Traffic", the traffic police in the field of traffic removes drivers from driving in cases provided for by the legislative acts of Belarus. GAI, within its competence, organizes and monitors compliance with traffic rules. Thus, the requirement of a traffic police officer to provide documents specified by regulatory legal acts is legal, therefore, the driver of the vehicle is obliged to comply with it.

Article 25 of the law "On the internal affairs bodies of the Republic of Belarus" provides for the right of employees of the internal affairs bodies to stop vehicles and remove from driving persons who are in a state of intoxicationor in a state caused by the consumption of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their analogues, toxic or other intoxicating substances, as well as not having the right to drive a vehicle. A similar provision is contained in Article 8.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Therefore, if the driver does not have the right to drive a vehicle, or if there are sufficient grounds to believe that he is in a state in which it is forbidden to drive a vehicle, such a person is removed from driving a vehicle. As for the requirement of the traffic police officer to get out of the car, here it is necessary to know what caused it. Such a requirement may be received by the driver in the case when his participation in legal proceedings, assistance to other road users, the need to eliminate a malfunction of the vehicle or violations of the rules for the carriage of goods. So such a requirement of a traffic police officer most often has legal grounds, and he should obey. Even if the driver believes that the demand of a traffic police officer is illegal, he should behave adequately, because later he can defend his rights and appeal against illegal actions.

- Does liability arise under Article 24.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses if a person refuses to proceed to the police station? Does the court always recognize the detention of an individual by law enforcement officers as justified?

- Responsibility under Article 24.3 for refusing to proceed to the police station occurs if this was a requirement of an employee of the internal affairs bodies and such a requirement was legal, that is, based on regulatory legal acts. As already noted, according to Article 25 of the Law "On Internal Affairs Bodies of the Republic of Belarus", police officers have the right to request from citizens the necessary documents, including proving their identity, if there are suspicions that citizens have committed crimes, administrative offenses. Consequently, in the absence of documents, a person must obey the lawful demand of an employee of the internal affairs bodies and proceed to the police station, and in case of refusal, such actions entail liability under Article 24.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Employees of the internal affairs bodies in accordance with Article 8. 2 PIKOAP has the right to detain a person and forcibly deliver him to the police station. In addition to identifying an individual, an individual can be detained to suppress illegal activities, draw up a protocol on an administrative offense if it is impossible to draw up an administrative offense at the place of detection (commission) of an administrative offense, ensure the participation of a person in the consideration of a case on an administrative offense, ensure the execution of an administrative penalty in the form of deportation and others. At the same time, the PIKOAP requires employees of the internal affairs bodies to follow a certain procedure, starting from the moment they apply to a citizen and ending with the detention of the latter, if necessary, and drawing up a protocol. If the procedure is violated, the detention may be declared unlawful. In addition to identifying an individual, an individual can be detained to suppress illegal activities, draw up a protocol on an administrative offense if it is impossible to draw up an administrative offense at the place of detection (commission) of an administrative offense, ensure the participation of a person in the consideration of a case on an administrative offense, ensure the execution of an administrative penalty in the form of deportation and others. At the same time, the PIKOAP requires employees of the internal affairs bodies to follow a certain procedure, starting from the moment they apply to a citizen and ending with the detention of the latter, if necessary, and drawing up a protocol. If the procedure is violated, the detention may be declared unlawful. In addition to identifying an individual, an individual can be detained to suppress illegal activities, draw up a protocol on an administrative offense if it is impossible to draw up an administrative offense at the place of detection (commission) of an administrative offense, ensure the participation of a person in the consideration of a case on an administrative offense, ensure the execution of an administrative penalty in the form of deportation and others. At the same time, the PIKOAP requires employees of the internal affairs bodies to follow a certain procedure, starting from the moment they apply to a citizen and ending with the detention of the latter, if necessary, and drawing up a protocol. If the procedure is violated, the detention may be declared unlawful. drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense, if it is impossible to draw up a protocol on the site of detection (commission) of an administrative offense, ensuring the participation of a person in the consideration of a case on an administrative offense, ensuring the execution of an administrative penalty in the form of deportation, etc. a certain procedure, starting from the moment of contacting a citizen and ending with the detention of the latter, if necessary, and the preparation of a protocol. If the procedure is violated, the detention may be declared unlawful. drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense, if it is impossible to draw up a protocol on the site of detection (commission) of an administrative offense, ensuring the participation of a person in the consideration of a case on an administrative offense, ensuring the execution of an administrative penalty in the form of deportation, etc. a certain procedure, starting from the moment of contacting a citizen and ending with the detention of the latter, if necessary, and the preparation of a protocol. If the procedure is violated, the detention may be declared unlawful. ensuring the execution of an administrative penalty in the form of deportation, etc. At the same time, the PIKOAP requires employees of the internal affairs bodies to follow a certain procedure, starting from the moment they apply to a citizen and ending with the detention of the latter, if necessary, and drawing up a protocol. If the procedure is violated, the detention may be declared unlawful. ensuring the execution of an administrative penalty in the form of deportation, etc. At the same time, the PIKOAP requires employees of the internal affairs bodies to follow a certain procedure, starting from the moment they apply to a citizen and ending with the detention of the latter, if necessary, and drawing up a protocol. If the procedure is violated, the detention may be declared unlawful.

- What are the most obvious reasons for such actions?

- An analysis of cases related to disobedience to a legal requirement or order of an official indicates that citizens ignore their duties. They do not think about the consequences of such behavior, and as a result, they are caught in illegal behavior and in an attempt to avoid responsibility. At the same time, legal illiteracy of citizens or an erroneous interpretation of the law cannot be ruled out.

BELTA.