Admissibility of Evidence Obtained in the Process of Visual Surveillance
Abstract
The purpose of the research is to identify the ways to minimize the procedural violations which lead to the impossibility of usage the factual data, obtained while conducting visual surveillance, as such ones, that cannot be recognized as admissible evidence in the criminal proceedings. Methodology. The methodological toolkit is chosen taking into account the purpose, the specifics of the object and the subject of the study. Its basis is general dialectical method of scientific cognition of real phenomena and also their connections with practical activity of the operative-search units and bodies of pre-trial investigation. Special methods of research, used in the article, are the methods of systematic analysis, comparative-legal and modelling ones. With the aim of evaluation of the research’s results the questionnaires of 200 operative workers, 200 investigators and 200 advocates (in Vinnitsa, Kyiv, Poltava, Kherson regions and in KyivCity) are held. The theoretical basis of the study is performed by the latest studies of native and foreign scientists who work in this specific field. Scientific novelty is contained in the development of the theoretical provisions as to the determination of: the main features of the inadmissibility of evidence, obtained while conducting visual surveillance of a person, a thing or a place; the most serious and typical violations of the procedural order of conducting such a surveillance, which give reasonable grounds for declaring the evidence obtained, inadmissible. Conclusions. The prosecution representatives’ violations of the legislator’s demands as to the procedural order of conducting visual surveillance of a person, a thing or a place, which lead to the inadmissibility of the received evidence, are grounded as by the subjective so by the objective factors. The subjective factors are related to the misunderstanding or deliberate ignorance of the content of certain norms of the CPC of Ukraine by prosecutors, investigators, employees of operative units (as well as by the drafters of the normative-legal acts). The objective factors are connected with the imperfection of certain norms of the Criminal Procedure Law, which do not facilitate the execution of criminal proceeding tasks but, on the contrary, often lead to the impossibility of prosecution of the persons who have committed criminal offences. The propositions as to the ways of such a situation’s improvement are made.
Keywords: criminal proceeding; proving; admissible evidence; inadmissible evidence; illicit actions; investigative actions; operative units.
Downloads
References
Albul S. V. Intelligence function of operatively-search activities of the Ukrainian National Police: questions of conceptualization and procdualization. In book : Legal Scholarly Discussions in the XXI Century. P. 1‒19. January 2019. doi: 10.36059/978-966-397-121-6/1-19.
Atkinson C. Mind the grass! Exploring the assessment of informant coverage in policing and law enforcement. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism. 2019. No. 14. Р. 1‒9. doi: 10.1080/18335330.2019.1572913.
Bekishev А. Specifics of Covert Investigative Activities in Criminal Proceedings. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics. 2020. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 58‒65. doi: https://doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v10.1(39).08.
Christopher N. Liability to Deception and Manipulation: The Ethics of Undercover Policing. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2017. No. 34 (3). Р. 370–388. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12243.
Cunha B. R., MacCarron P., Passold J. F., Santos L. W., Oliveira K. A., Gleeson J. P. Assessing police topological efficiency in a major sting operation on the dark web. Scientific Reports. 2020. Vol. 10. No. 73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56704-4.
Grabosky Р., Gregor U. Online Undercover Investigations and the Role of Private Third Parties. International Journal of Cyber Criminology. 2019. No. 13 (1). P. 38–54. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3383885.
Kruisbergen E. W. Infiltrating organized crime groups. Theory, regulation and results of a last resort method of investigation. 2013. No. 3. Р. 109‒136. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55973-5_15.
Kruisbergen E. W. When Other Methods Fail... Infiltrating Organized Crime Groups in the Netherlands. Contemporary Organized Crime: Developments, Challenges and Responses. 2017. No. 15. P. 253‒278. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55973-5_15.
Loftus B. Normalizing covert surveillance: the subterranean world of policing. The British Journal of Sociology. 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12651.
Loftus B., Goold B., Mac Giollabhui S. From a Visible Spectacle to an Invisible Presence: The Working Culture of Covert Policing. British Journal of Criminology. 2015. No. 56. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azv076.
Мирошниченко Ю. М. Негласні слідчі (розшукові) дії: підстави проведення. Правова позиція. 2019. № 2 (23). С. 117‒121. doi: https://doi.org/10.32836/2521-6473-2019-2-117-121.
Первій В. Ю. Виявлення та документування злочинів у сфері службової діяльності та професійної діяльності, повʼязаної з наданням публічних послуг. Науковий вісник Дніпропетровського державного університету внутрішніх справ. 2019. № 4. С. 236–243. doi: 10.31733/2078-3566-2019-4-236-243.
Погорецький М. А. Застосування провокації в ході негласних розслідувань: питання правомірності. Вісник кримінального судочинства. 2016. № 1. С. 33–42.
Погорецький М. А. Негласні слідчі (розшукові) дії: проблеми провадження та використання результатів у доказуванні. Юридичний часопис Національної академії внутрішніх справ. 2013. № 1. С. 270–277.
Schlembach R. Undercover policing and the spectre of ʼdomestic extremismʼ: the covert surveillance of environmental activism in Britain. Social Movement Studies. 2018. No. 17. Р. 1‒16. doi: 10.1080/14742837.2018.1480934.
Сергєєва Д. Б. Напрями використання результатів негласних слідчих (розшукових) дій у кримінальному процесуальному доказуванні. Вісник кримінального судочинства. 2018. № 2. С. 81–91.
Цуцкірідзе М., Старенький О. Використання негласних слідчих (розшукових) дій як засобів доказування в кримінальному провадженні на досудовому розслідуванні. Право України. 2015. № 1. С. 152–161.
Венедіктов А. А. Венедіктова Ю. Є. Визначення судом допустимості доказів, одержаних під час проведення негласних слідчих (розшукових) дій. Юридичний науковий електронний журнал. 2019. № 5. С. 283–285. URL: http://www.lsej.org.ua/5_2019/69.pdf. doi: https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2019-5/67.
Abstract views: 137 PDF Downloads: 243
Copyright (c) 2020 Law Magazine of the National Academy of Internal Affairs
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
- Authors reserve the right to authorship of their own work and transfer to the magazine the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows other persons to freely distribute published work with mandatory reference to authors of the original work and the first publication of an article in this magazine.
- Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements on non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published in the journal (for example, to post an article in the institution's repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is maintained.
- The journal's policy allows and encourages the posting of articles by authors on the Internet (for example, in electronic storehouses of institutions or on personal websites), both before the submission of this manuscript to the editorial office and during its editorial processing, as this contributes to the creation of a productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work.
