Business Ombudsman Boris Titov on the division of powers of the police and inspectors

A promise not to be limited 46 articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses and the expansion of this list by the second reading of the bill is encouraging. The mechanism for such expansion, similar to the “regulatory guillotine,” appears to be effective. Although I foresee difficulties. “Protection of values ​​protected by law” is a universal concept and an extremely convenient argument for security forces when defending the powers that they are trying to deprive them of.

This aspect has already manifested itself in the implementation of the new principle enshrined in the Code of Administrative Offenses not so long ago. The fine for the first violation is now supposed to be replaced with a warning, but only if there is no “harm or threat of harm to the life and health of people, objects of flora and fauna, the environment, cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of peoples Russian Federation, state security, threats of natural and man-made emergency situations.”

But the fact is that most inspectors sincerely believe that all cases they identify pose a threat of harm. In their opinion, the very fact of violation of any requirements poses a threat to society by default. Therefore, there can be no talk of mitigation. It will be the same with the police, they will hold on to “legally protected values” to the last.

Separately, I would like to dwell on the need (according to the police) for “forceful” escort. The argument is to counteract the controllers, although this is a completely different composition. In this case, we are not talking about accompanying representatives of control and supervisory agencies, but about independently recording the fact of an offense. But the opportunity to call the police in case of any threats from controlled persons always remains. Why assume misconduct a priori?

And of course, there will remain the problem of “ordered” visits to verify information about the offense and inspect the crime scene. After all, we remember that the police receive and register in the appropriate book statements and reports of crimes, administrative offenses, and incidents. Therefore, after the implementation of the president’s instructions, it will be necessary to pay attention to a possible increase in the number of such statements and reports on those compounds that will remain under the jurisdiction of the police. And it is important to further strengthen control to ensure that, firstly, the verification is carried out only within the framework of the information contained in the message, and secondly, each case of a false message is considered accordingly.

I would like to emphasize that eliminating duplication of functions will allow the police to focus on solving other tasks that are more important than checking compliance with mandatory requirements. And the more burden is removed from law enforcement officers, the more resources can be redistributed. Let’s not forget about reducing the corruption component. The famous argument of the man in uniform “we’ll come and dig up something for sure” may soon not be so convincing.

Diana Galieva