New amendments to the law “On Police” were adopted in the second reading by the State Duma. This is a government bill expanding the powers of the police. Recall that amendments to the Law “On Police” were introduced by the Cabinet of Ministers to the State Duma in May 2020 and adopted in the first reading in December of the same year.
The question is very painful, as it concerns the civil rights of ordinary people. On the one hand, these rights can be infringed upon. On the other hand, expanding the powers of the police can save lives, not to mention the detention or neutralization of dangerous criminals. Let us recall that the bill concerns the right of police officers to enter, so to speak, without knocking into private housing, to open private cars, and to use weapons. And a lot more concerns, even the cordoning off of the site where a crime has occurred or may occur.
Now, judging by the bill, the police will be able to cordon off, that is, deny access, not just a site, but an entire territory. And within the boundaries of the cordon, the police will be able to carry out a personal inspection of citizens, their belongings, and inspection of vehicles.
If a person refuses to be examined, the police have the right not to let him into the cordoned off territory or not to let him out of it. What is meant by this – they will tell in bylaws, which do not yet exist. But for the residents, there is already a difference – they will cordon off only the courtyard near the house, in one of the apartments of which, say, a murder took place, or the entire quarter. In addition, Article 15 of the Law “On Police” is proposed to be supplemented with a norm on the possibility of police officers entering residential and other premises, on land plots to detain persons caught at the scene of a crime or hiding from it.
Lieutenant General Yuri Zhdanov, President of the Russian section of the International Police Association, said that all these norms were dictated by common sense. Without them, no police officer can do his job in extreme conditions. Over the past decades, in Russia, the actions of law enforcement officers have been so regulated and imposed with so many rules, restrictions and instructions that they are often simply deprived of the legal opportunity to do anything.
What else is on offer?
Thus, the police may be allowed to introduce themselves to the suspect after his arrest. And a police officer will be able to open a car and enter it to save lives and ensure the safety of citizens, to detain suspects or accused. The police will have the right to open the car when there is a threat of a terrorist attack, to detain suspects, whom the victims or eyewitnesses point to as having committed a crime, to suppress the crime. In addition, employees will be able to exercise this authority if there is reason to believe that the perpetrator is drunk.
Police officers will be allowed to enter private property or housing to catch criminals red-handed at the crime scene
A provision was removed from the bill, according to which a policeman “is not responsible for harm caused to citizens and organizations when opening a vehicle, if this measure was applied on the grounds and in the manner established by law.” After all, there is a difference when experts carefully open a suspicious car, picking up the keys to the door lock, or is it just the windshield that is smashed with a bat? And if nothing suspicious was found in the car and the operas were simply mistaken? Who will pay for the damage? The statement “there is reason to believe”, you must agree, is a weak consolation for the owner of a mangled car. The amendments to the law stipulate that the police officer must pay for the unlawful damage to the car.
A particularly sensitive issue, including for the police themselves, is the right to use weapons, including for self-defense. Thus, an amendment was recommended for adoption in the second reading, which would preserve the article of the Law “On Police” on guarantees of the personal safety of policemen unchanged. It will not include a provision on the right of a police officer to use firearms when a detainee tries to commit actions that can be regarded as a threat of attack. This proposal was contained in the first reading. Everything remains as it was before. That is, the policeman sees that the offender has taken out a weapon and is ready to use it against him or the people around him. Warn with his voice, fire a warning shot upward and shoot to kill. And then the prosecutors will figure it out.
Yuri Zhdanov believes that ideally the law would sound like this: “the police have the right and must, if necessary, take any action to neutralize criminals and protect citizens.” But immediately there will be critics who will talk about legal uncertainty and the breadth of formulations. Therefore, you have to go a long way – to prescribe details and situations.
According to General Zhdanov, the application of the new rules will affect the rights and interests of citizens. In this regard, detailed and transparent regulation is needed, including by-laws – instructions and regulations. The basis for the application of these rules is broadly interpreted and therefore subject to abuse.
Yuri Zhdanov believes that legislators should pay special attention to the rule that excludes the responsibility of police officers for actions committed in the line of duty, if they are committed in accordance with the established procedure. It is in this case that abuse and excess of authority are possible. Any irresponsibility breeds abuse.
Here is a simple example – opening a car if there is reason to believe that the offender is intoxicated. This norm immediately raises many questions. For example, a person left a restaurant late at night and got behind the wheel of a car. Is there any reason to believe that he is intoxicated? Or maybe he is a restaurant worker and a complete teetotaler?
Yuri Zhdanov also cites another example, when a man in a state of strong alcoholic intoxication in a public place violated public order, got into a car with a driver. Is it possible to forcibly open this vehicle in case of refusal of the people in it, if the violator is indicated in the bill, and not the driver? What will do less harm to public order?
.