36.4. Do officers of law enforcement agencies have the right to seize items and documents during detention, personal search, or inspection of belongings?
UAЧи мають право посадові особи правоохоронних органів вилучати речі і документи під час затримання, особистого огляду або огляду речей?
Question without image
This exam question from the Traffic Rules of Ukraine concerns not so much the technique of driving as the legal guarantees when interacting with the police: what limits does a law enforcement officer have during detention, personal search, or inspection of belongings. For a driver, this is as important as the traffic rules themselves, since situations may arise on the road where documents or items are involved in an administrative offense case, and it is important to understand what may be lawfully seized.
The topic tested by the theoretical exam belongs to the section on administrative liability and the powers of officials (Article 265 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses). Its content is simple: seizure during detention/search is allowed only for items and documents that are tools of the offense or its direct object, and such seizure must be necessarily recorded in a protocol or noted in the protocol. This rule protects against situations where seizure turns into unjustified interference with private rights.
The analysis of the answer options comes down to the limits of authority. The statement about the possibility to seize "any" items at the discretion of the official is incorrect, because the law directly limits the grounds to a connection with the offense. The option allowing seizure only of what is a tool or object of the offense corresponds to Article 265 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and is the only correct one. The compromise option, which actually allows the first approach as well, is also incorrect, as it blurs the legal boundaries and contradicts the principle of "only what is related to the offense."
Practically, this knowledge helps the driver respond correctly in a real situation: to demand proper documentation of the seizure, to check exactly what is being seized and on what grounds, and to understand that personal belongings or documents not related to the incident of the offense should not be seized "for verification." This approach is useful both for exam preparation and for safe legal behavior on the road.
Article 265 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses "Items and documents that are instruments or direct objects of the offense"
Items and documents that are instruments or direct objects of the offense, discovered during detention, personal search or inspection of belongings, are seized by officials of the bodies specified in Articles 234-1, 234-2, 244-4, 262, and 264 of this Code. The seized items and documents are kept until the case of the administrative offense is considered, in the manner established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in agreement with the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, and after the case is considered, depending on the outcome, they are either confiscated, returned to the owner, destroyed, or, in the case of paid seizure of items, sold. A protocol is drawn up for the seizure of items and documents, or an appropriate entry is made in the protocol on the administrative offense, on the inspection of belongings, or on administrative detention.
Explanation of application: this provision establishes the limits of the powers of officials during detention/inspection — it is allowed to seize not "anything whatsoever," but only what is directly related to the offense (is an instrument or direct object), and with mandatory recording in the protocol/entry.
That is, the correct answer is "They have the right to seize only those items and documents that are instruments or direct objects of the offense," given that according to Article 265 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, only items and documents that are instruments or direct objects of the offense are subject to seizure, and such seizure must be duly recorded in a protocol.
During detention, personal search, or inspection of belongings, law enforcement officers cannot act "at their own discretion" and seize any items or documents. Their powers in this matter are strictly limited by law so that seizures do not become unjustified interference with human rights.
Article 265 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses establishes the principle: only those items and documents that are related to an administrative offense may be seized. That is, there are two types of items: the means of committing the offense (what is used to commit it) or the direct object of the offense (what the offense is directed at). If an item or document is not directly related to the event of the offense, there are no grounds for its seizure.
For example, if during an inspection items are found that were used to commit the offense or are its direct "object," they may be seized until the case is considered. On the other hand, ordinary personal belongings (phone, wallet, other documents) that are neither the means nor the object of the offense may not be seized just because someone wants to or "for checking."
It is also important that the seizure must be properly documented: a protocol is drawn up or an appropriate entry is made in the protocol on the administrative offense, inspection of belongings, or administrative detention. This is necessary to record exactly what was seized and for what reason.
Therefore, the correct answer is "They have the right to seize only those items and documents that are the means or direct object of the offense," since Article 265 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses allows the seizure of only those items and documents directly related to the offense, and not any items at the discretion of the official.