On March 13, 2017, by its decision, the Holosiyivsky District Court of Kyiv closed the proceedings for the commission of our client an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of the Article. 130 KUpAP due to the expiration of the limitation period for bringing our client to administrative liability.
This matter was quite interesting given the evidence gathered by the defender. so we believe that at the time of the decision the court had other grounds for closing the proceedings, in particular, the defense party indicated that during the course of client protection, a number of lawyers’ requests were received for information on the Drager Alcotest 6820 gas analyzer (alcoesters) used by employees Police to determine the driver’s intoxication.
In this particular case, it was found that, firstly, the gas analyzer (alcoesters) Drager Alcotest 6820 which police officers used during the drafting of a protocol on the commission of an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of Article. 130 KUpAP in respect of our client, there was an annual verification outside the period of the outstanding technical documentation of the use of the specified alcohol test and, secondly, when the device was sent to the service in November 2016 in the service book in the column “the number of tests made from the date of preliminary verification” indicated «00100», and in the column «number of tests on the meter after verification» – «00101». That is, in the period from October 2015 to November 2016, for more than one year and one month, the indicators of the gas analyzer counter were 101 tests, and as of December 1, 2016, on the day of the administrative offense, 204 tests. However, according to a lawyer’s request for information, the Department of Patrol Police informed me that the special technical device for the gas analyzer Drager Alcotest 6820 number ***, operated by officers of the police patrol police in Kiev, for the entire period of operation made only 70 tests, of which 2016 will be 65 and 5 in 2017. And in such circumstances, the defense insisted that in the case file there were documents with legal defects that allegedly contain information about the commission of an administrative offense by our client, but, in the meaning of Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine, can not be used by the court as proper and admissible evidence, and communications with which in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 247 of the CUAAP, the proceedings have all grounds to be closed in the absence of an administrative offense in the actions of our client.
The protection was provided by lawyer Konoval Taras Pavlovich.
Full text of the court decision at the link http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/65447772.
