After stopping and checking the technical condition of the car, it turned out that a lot of wood came under the car, which damaged the wheel and got stuck between the engine protection and the road. To pull it out was quite difficult.
Fortunately, a police patrol crew of the city of Kyiv passed by. They stopped themselves and inquired about the need for help. One patrol officer wondered why the driver failed to avoid an accident and ran into an obstacle. The driver, in turn, responded to the patrol officer that there were several circumstances that contributed to this event:
– night and unlit road;
– roadway, which should not have different pieces of wood;
– the presence of pits in which these pieces of wood are hidden;
The answer upset the patrolman and in his turn decided to hold our driver administratively responsible for the accident. There was a scuffle that caused the police officer to offer the driver an alcohol test.
The events took place for almost 2 hours as police tried to get the driver to undergo a drunken inspection. The driver, in turn, enjoyed the right to refuse the examination while on the road, not in a special medical facility.
The result of the actions of the police patrol officers struck our company partners:
– Protocol for Part 1 Art. 124 KUPAP (guilty of road accident);
– Protocol for Part 1 Art. 130 KUPAP (drunk driving);
– Protocol for Art. 185 KUPAP (disobedience to the police);
– resolution on Art. 178 KUPAP (drunkenness in a public place);
It happens! Lawyers were surprised at the number of “offenses”.
He learned from us what he urgently needed to do. After all the events, he went to a medical facility for “sociotherapy” to undergo an independent examination of alcohol intoxication. This played a decisive role and proved his sobriety.
We have proven that there is no administrative offense in all available protocols and regulations. The client was fully justified.
The bodies of the National Police of Ukraine conducted a disciplinary check of the above-mentioned patrol police officers. Those guilty of wrongdoing were punished.
The client was fully acquitted and the case was closed in the absence of an administrative offense.
Unfair law enforcement officers were punished in the manner prescribed by law.