Some Questions of Practical Application of Photographing, Audio and Video Recording on Criminal Cases

About the author:

Ilya I. Litvin, Postgraduate at the Department of Criminal Proceedings, Ural Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation; ila-lake888@rambler.ru

Abstract:

In this article theoretical and application-oriented aspects of use of technical means in proof on criminal cases are considered on the basis of the existing jurisprudence.

The author showed ways to use technical means during different investigative actions, researched cases when use of technical means for fixing of investigative action is mandatory. The author considered circumstances of use of technical means when carrying out a research by the expert.

The conducted scientific and analytical research led to the conclusion that technical means in case of investigation of criminal case are not used in the volume in which the modern technologies allow to do it. Moreover, existence of private shortcomings of procedural design of the materials, received by means of technical means which allow doubts in reliability of these data, is revealed.

Systems analysis of the norms regulating use of technical means allowed to conclude that procedural difficulties which require additional expenses of time are the reason of insufficient use of technical means. The author carries requirements about a mandatory involvement of the expert in case of exception of electronic media of information and requirement about viewing of the video record upon completion of this investigative action to these difficulties.

Promotion of a row of sentences on optimization of the procedure of application of video fixing of the course of investigative action became the total of research activities of the author.

References:

1. RF Higher Court Appeal Resolution of 4 October 2016 on the case no 66-APU 16-24. http://legalacts.ru/sud/apelliatsionnoe-opredelenie-verkhovnogo-suda-rf-ot-04102016-n-66-apu16-24
2. Primorye Krai Court Appeal Resolution of 24 September 2015 no 22-5674/15. http://sudact.ru/regular/doc/mcLt94ndnd0
3. Balakshin V. S. 2013. “Dopustimost’ dokazatel’stv: ponyatie, pravovaya priroda, znachenie, algoritm otsenki: nauch.-prakt. posobie” [Admissibility of Evidence: Concept, Legal Nature, Meaning, Evaluation Algorithm. Textbook], p. 60. Yekaterinburg. 
4. Vasyukov V .F. 2016. “Iz’’yatie yеlektronnykh nositelei informatsii: nereshennye problemy praktiki” [Seizure of Electronic Media: Unresolved Problems of Practice]. Uugolovnyi protsess, no 2, pp. 54-57.
5. Glushkov M. R. 2016. “O dokazatel’stvennom znachenii videozapisi sledstvennogo deistviya” [On the Evidence Value of the Video Recording of the Investigative Action]. Ugolovnyi protsess i kriminalistika, no 4 (9), p. 157.
6. RF Higher Court Cassation Resolution of 19 May 2011 on the case no UOS-05-2-2/11. http://sudact.ru/vsrf/doc/TGhf52AjDZbT
7. Malyuka A. A. 2012. “Vozmozhnosti i predely ispol’zovaniya graficheskikh redaktorov pri rabote s tsifrovymi izobrazheniyami — nositelyami dokazatel’stvennoi informatsii” [Opportunities and Limits of Using Graphic Editors When Working with Digital Images — Carriers of Evidentiary Information]. Ekspert-kriminalist, no 4, pp. 31-32.
8. Pastuhov P. S. 2015. “O neobhodimosti zameny v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve pis’mennogo protokola yеlektronnym dokumentom” [On the Need to Replace the Written Protocol in the Criminal Proceedings with an Electronic Document]. Nauchnyi vestnik Omskoi akademii MVD Rossii, no 3, pp. 21-23.
9. Borsky Court of the Nizhegorodsky region Verdict of 10 July 2015 on the case no 1-250/2014. http://sudact.ru/regular/doc/XCScW7B0GIga
10. Savitskaya I. G. 2016. “Uchastie spetsialista v sledstvennykh deistviyakh, svyazannykh s iz’’yatiem yеlektronnykh nositelei informatsii” [Participation of a Specialist in Investigative Actions Related to the Seizure of Electronic Information Carriers]. Sudebnaya vlast’ i ugolovnyi protsess, no 2, pp. 250-254.
11. Sementsov V. A. 1995. “Video- i zvukozapis’ v dokazatel’stvennoi deyatel’nosti sledovatelya: uchebno-prakticheskoe posobie. Prilozhenie k zhurnalu “Sledovatel’” [Video and Sound Recording in the Investigative Activities of the Investigator: Educational and Practical Guide. Appendix to the Journal “Investigator”], p. 31. Yekaterinburg.
12. Smirnov A. V., Kalinovskii K. B. 2008. “Ugolovnyi protsess: uchebnik” [Criminal Process: Textbook]. Edited by A. V. Smirnov. 4th edition, revised. P. 376. Moscow: KNORUS.
13. Criminal case no 1-93/15. Arkhiv Ordzhonikidzevskogo raionnogo suda g. Ekaterinburga [Archive of the Ordzhonikidze Regional Court in Yekaterinburg].
14. Criminal case no 1-146/15. Arkhiv Ordzhonikidzevskogo raionnogo suda g. Ekaterinburga [Archive of the Ordzhonikidze Regional Court in Yekaterinburg].
15. Khaidarov A. A. 2017. “Kak dokazat’ fal’sifikatsiyu protokola osmotra mesta proisshestviya” [How to Prove the Falsification of the Protocol of Inspection of the Scene of the Accident]. Ugolovnyi protsess, no 2, p. 57.