Is it possible to film a traffic police inspector? Traffic police officers were allowed to stop cars outside stationary checkpoints, there are other changes

On October 20, a new administrative regulation for traffic police officers (Order No. 664) comes into force, which provoked quite a stir in the media. We decided to find out whether inspectors were really banned from filming and whether it’s true that you can now stop a car to check documents anywhere.

Post finished

What is the reason for the stop? - competent drivers like to ask when an inspector slows them down.

So, before, when stopping outside a checkpoint, a traffic police officer could not refer to the need to check documents, but now he can. But has anything essentially changed? No, experts say.

The inspector had the opportunity to stop outside the stationary post before, and any more or less savvy employee could easily comply with the formalities of the regulations.

In the new regulations, at first glance, the powers are even expanded, but in fact, a stop to check documents must still be justified.

The requirements for checking documents have only become more stringent: now, whether at a stationary post or outside it, the inspector needs grounds for this, which are listed in paragraph 106 of the new regulations, explains auto expert Yuri Panchenko.

Without going into details, the reasons can be divided into three groups: identifying signs of traffic violations, the presence of orientations or carrying out activities.

Simply put, it is now possible to stop to check documents, but the reasons for stopping a driver are essentially the same! The inspector only needs to announce the identification of signs of traffic violations or refer to a special operation, and the ceremonial part will be completed.

This supposed ban on stopping cars outside of stationary checkpoints was most often appealed to by drunk drivers, trying to ruin the case, but I don’t remember that any court accepted their argument, even if the inspector violated the requirements of the regulations, explains auto lawyer Lev Voropaev. - Understand that courts extremely rarely take into account the mentioned regulations when considering administrative cases against drivers, since the proceedings on them are regulated by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and the procedure for the actions of the inspector is also regulated by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 711, the Law “On Police” ", etc. The topic of the ban on checking documents outside of stationary posts was initially overblown.

Secret signs

But here is a rather interesting aspect discovered by auto expert Yuri Panchenko: in the previous regulations, Art. 57 prohibited the use of automatic fixing devices in places where temporary signs were installed. Now such a ban has disappeared from the regulations.

On the one hand, the authorized person needs to somehow confirm that the temporary sign was actually installed at such and such a time on such and such a section of the road,” comments Yuriy Panchenko. - On the other hand, you can first obtain confirmation of the installation of a temporary sign, for example, from a contractor that is performing repair work, and then impose “automatic” fines, even if the sign is not installed or installed with violations.

This can give rise to bad practices because temporary signs are often elusive, like happiness. This is not only about deliberate forgery: a temporary sign can fall due to the wind, be stolen or covered by a construction vehicle, but in a few weeks the driver will be able to prove anything only by saving the recording from the dash cam.

In case of violations recorded automatically, it is the driver’s responsibility to prove his own innocence. The presence or absence of temporary signs on the corresponding section of the road at the time of the violation will have to be proven by the citizen, and not by the inspector, which, of course, is extremely problematic, says Lev Voropaev.

How to remove an inspector

Another overblown topic is the alleged ban on filming a traffic police inspector. In the previous version of the regulations, the wording was as follows: “An employee must not interfere with the use of video and sound recording equipment by a road user, unless prohibited by law. The employee must inform the road user making the recording about the existence of the prohibition.”

Such a requirement was introduced by the top management of the traffic police after a series of conflicts between drivers and traffic police inspectors, and its motive is clear - to make the work of the traffic police officer transparent.

Yuri Panchenko believes that the permission to film the inspector has not gone away:

The media are trumpeting that for filming an employee you can get almost Part 1 of Art. 19.3 (disobedience to the legal demands of the inspector), which threatens punishment up to and including arrest, is utter nonsense. The absence of direct permission in the administrative regulations does not change anything essentially, because the right to conduct such filming is determined by other laws, in particular, the law “On Information...” There is no law that would prohibit recording a conversation with an inspector, so filming can be done at least hidden, even open. But I would warn you against using hidden special recording equipment, for example, pens with a built-in voice recorder. In Russia, even their acquisition constitutes a criminal offense. You can still film the inspector with a regular smartphone.

Lev Voropaev is confident that the new edition of the regulations will increase the number of controversial situations:

Inspectors had already believed through one of them that it was impossible to remove them, but at least direct permission to do this was contained in the administrative regulations. Now they have removed it, and although this has not changed anything essentially, it is unlikely that ordinary employees will delve into these subtleties. They are more often guided by the information background of the media, where the idea of ​​​​a ban on filming is being discussed, so I would not be surprised if traffic police officers more often prevent filming.

About "commercial" cameras

In many regions, a practice has developed where video recording systems for violations do not belong to the traffic police. Their operators and owners are specialized companies that work with the traffic police within the framework of the law on public-private and municipal-private partnerships.

In the new administrative regulations, this approach has been formalized: clause 76 allows the use of technical means, including those belonging to public associations and organizations.

In addition, the cameras must comply with the recently introduced GOST, which is relevant for complexes installed after July 1, 2017.

The head of the regional traffic police in an interview with E1.RU said that he welcomes the installation of cameras by commercial companies.

The best way to get a divorce

The old regulations, when seizing a fake driver’s license, provided for the issuance of a temporary permit to the driver, says Yuriy Panchenko. - The new regulations do not provide for the issuance of a temporary permit, and according to paragraph 7.11, a copy of the seized driver’s license is issued if there are signs of it being falsified. But the confiscation of documents is also mentioned in paragraph 219, which is formulated in such a way that it is not necessary to give the driver a copy of the license, I quote: “if documents are confiscated, with the exception of the confiscation of a driver’s license, copies are made from them...” In practice this opens a loophole for such a scam: they stop a vacationing driver somewhere near Krasnodar and say that the license shows signs of being counterfeit, and therefore it is confiscated. And since paragraph 219 does not require the provision of a certified copy, an examination will be carried out, and the driver will not go anywhere. And then he is offered to resolve the issue “amicably.”

The expert notes that such a divorce is possible, but illegal, because falsification of documents does not constitute an administrative violation, which is discussed in paragraph 219, but a criminal offense, and, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, in this case, providing a copy is mandatory, which is what stated in paragraph 7.11.

But inspectors can make a fool of the driver that he will be left without a driver’s license when he is away from home,” concludes Yuriy Panchenko. - If this happens, do not give in and demand a certified copy of the document, and if the rights are nevertheless confiscated and they turn out to be genuine, then go to court for compensation.

Medical examination with delivery

The regulations have been supplemented with Article 223, which instructs police officers to deliver the driver from the medical center to his car if medical workers do not confirm the state of intoxication.

Is it necessary to cram the regulations?

The excitement around the new administrative regulations creates the impression that this is almost the main document regulating the relationship between a traffic police officer and a driver. Lev Voropaev explains that its importance is exaggerated:

By and large, this is an internal document of the inspection, and it has no direct relation to drivers. The relevance of the regulations can only be discussed in cases where there is a question of holding the inspector accountable for violations, which in practice does not happen often for obvious reasons. Knowledge of administrative regulations is unlikely to help to terminate a case of an administrative offense against a driver (avoid a fine, deprivation of the right to drive, arrest, etc.). It is not the primary document that would determine the activities of the traffic police, if we are talking about the practice of judicial proceedings in administrative cases against drivers.

Yuri Panchenko believes that there are still benefits from knowing the regulations:

He describes all the actions of the inspector and presents an extract from the laws, and even with references to them. When filing a complaint, open the required section of the regulations, rewrite what the inspector was obliged to do, but did not, but place a link not to the regulations themselves, but to the laws mentioned there, he sums up.

Text: Artyom KRASNOV
Photo: Artyom USTYUZHANIN / E1.RU
Infographics: Polina AVDOSHINA / 74.ru

The Ministry of Internal Affairs denied information circulating on the RuNet that citizens are allegedly prohibited from recording the actions of police officers in photos and videos.

Messages about this appeared in popular groups on social networks and Telegram channels, immediately causing angry and ironic comments from their subscribers. Also, reports about this were published in a number of media.

“It was prohibited to record conversations with a traffic police officer on camera. The corresponding order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was brought into compliance with the norms of current legislation. The clause that allowed citizens to take photos and videos of interactions with a traffic police officer disappeared from the order. That is, this opportunity is provided for the traffic police officers themselves, but has disappeared for those who are faced with the need to communicate with the traffic police,” wrote, for example, the Tula edition of the Moskovsky Komsomolets publication on October 13.

Meanwhile, as Reedus found out, the list of duties assigned to the police is provided for in Part 1 of Article 12 of the Federal Law of February 7, 2011 No. Z-FZ “On the Police”. In accordance with Part 2 of this article, other responsibilities can be assigned to the police only by amending the Federal Law “On the Police”. In this regard, the rule obliging a police officer “not to interfere with the use of photo, video and sound recording equipment by a road user, unless prohibited by law, if there is a prohibition to inform the road user of its grounds” is excluded from the Administrative Regulations.

At the same time, the exclusion of this norm does not prevent citizens from exercising the right to exercise audio, video and photography in cases not prohibited by the legislation of the Russian Federation. At the same time, police officers are obliged to respect the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, public associations and organizations by virtue of paragraph 5 of part 1 of Article 27 of the Federal Law “On the Police”. A similar norm is also enshrined in the subsection “Rights and responsibilities of employees in the implementation of federal state supervision” of the Administrative Regulations.

In addition, in order to prevent abuse of official powers, the Administrative Regulations require police officers to carry out administrative procedures in the field of view of video surveillance systems located in patrol vehicles and at stationary traffic police posts, or wearable video recorders, the press center of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs told Reedus.

Previously, Reedus told the story of how a daring local police officer lost his job after a scandalous video.

Often citizens become witnesses to an incident or scandal, accident, or other public situation when a group of police officers or another service goes to the scene. Curious and sometimes interested people try to film the event at least on a mobile phone, and if they have other digital equipment at hand, on it. With today's modern development of information technology and technology, such videos quickly end up on the Internet and become available to the public.

Dear readers! The article talks about typical ways to resolve legal issues, but each case is individual. If you want to know how solve exactly your problem- contact a consultant:

APPLICATIONS AND CALLS ARE ACCEPTED 24/7 and 7 days a week.

It's fast and FOR FREE!

Internet users do not ignore such videos, giving them less than flattering ratings and comments. One of the categories of videos that Internet users love to watch are those involving law enforcement agencies.

At the same time, such video recordings can become material evidence if the case comes to trial. Sometimes a citizen, out of curiosity, films the communication between officials and participants in an event, not suspecting that the material could become life-changing for someone.

The police are not always happy about the presence of the “director”; they often express open protest and exceed their authority, especially when they behave illegally, which is obvious to everyone. Therefore, for ordinary citizens, the question of whether it is possible to film police officers while on duty is relevant. In general, video recording of police officers is not regulated by law, which means that no one prohibited it.

But, as in any other situation, citizens need to adhere to certain rules. Often the police themselves refer to the Civil Code when commenting on scandalous videos appearing on TV or on the Internet. After all, it says that any images of individuals can only be used with their permission.

Filming of this nature, when one can see inappropriate behavior of civil service employees towards ordinary citizens or suspects, abuse of authority of responsible persons, rather indicates the collection of material evidence that has nothing to do with personal claims.

We can also say that in this case the “director” does not violate the Civil Code. The relationship between police officers or employees of other services who are on duty and ordinary citizens does not fall within the scope of this legislative act.

It examines the relationships between subjects who are in any situation on equal terms. But the relationship between those in power and citizens obliged to obey it is regulated by other rules of law.

It is also important for citizens today to remember that the duties of police officers include filming various situations if the video data may indicate a violation of the law. Service vehicles are equipped with DVRs, and the police themselves wear DVR badges. Filming can be stored on the police server for 6 months.

Regulatory regulation

Police officers in Russia today have broad rights.

The law allows them, if necessary in situations where it is required for the safety of civilians and for other purposes:

• stop citizens or personal cars in order to establish their identity, find out the purpose of movement along the road or populated area, beyond its borders;
• check public transport and the persons in it, including their personal belongings, if they seem suspicious;
• check documents of Russian citizens and foreigners staying in Russia;
• enter residential and non-residential premises in order to check any circumstances;
• other.

The legislator claims that it is possible to film police officers while performing their duties, you just need to warn about the start of filming:

• There is no such prohibition in Law No. 3 (02/07/11) on the Police. On the contrary, in Art. 8 states that the activities of law enforcement officers are open if the legislation does not indicate the requirements of other Russian laws in a given situation:
  • Criminal or Administrative Procedure Code;
  • on operational investigative activities;
  • about secrets that are protected by the state;
  • on the protection of the rights of citizens, organizations, public associations;
  • others.
• In Departmental regulations relating to the activities of traffic police officers. The administrative regulations of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate (clause 25), which approve the procedure for control and supervision of road users to ensure road safety, indicate that:
  • A traffic police officer must not interfere with audio or video recording by a road user;
  • if there is a ban on specific filming, the traffic police officer must inform the interested person about this with reference to a document or article of the law;
  • a road user has the right to record a conversation with a traffic police officer.
• The principle of accessibility to information and publicity is enshrined in:
  • Law No. 8 (02/09/09) On ensuring access to the activities of government agencies and local governments, in Art. 4;
  • Law No. 273 (12/25/08) On combating corruption on the territory of the Russian Federation, in Art. 3;
  • Law No. 58 (05/27/03) On the civil service system in Russia.
• Presidential Decree No. 2334 (December 21, 1993) in paragraph 3 established additional guarantees giving citizens the right to access information regarding the activities of government bodies and various services. In particular, any citizen has the right to exercise control over government services and organizations, officials, if only their activities are related to the rights and interests of other citizens.

Is it possible to film

In the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 29, paragraph 4, the legislator established the right for citizens to receive, search, transmit, distribute and produce information, if this is done by legal means.

Thus, according to this article, a citizen has the right to take photos and videos:

• press conferences, unless the organizer himself prohibits this;
• various persons who participate in protests, demonstrations or are speakers at any event;
• participants in any incident or collision in 2020;
• any people who accidentally ended up in the frame when there was no purpose to film them (in this case, the person in the frame should not cover the lens with their hands, clearly protest or object to being photographed).

Citizens themselves who wish to carry out such filming of police officers need to understand that, on the one hand, they have such rights, but on the other, every person in the frame has the right to privacy. The rights of citizens to privacy, family secrets, protection of their good name and honor are also given by the legislator in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in Art. 23.

In other cases, this issue includes:

• protection of one's image by citizens (Civil Code, Article 1 -);
• protection of information about operational investigative activities (Article 12 of the relevant Law);
• protection of state and other secrets that are protected by law (Law No. 5485-1 of July 21, 1993, Article 5).

If there is any restriction on filming in a particular situation, then the police officer, in accordance with the Police Law, Art. 5 must indicate to the interested party which internal regulatory act or Law of the Russian Federation he is guided by.

Separately, in most cases, there is a ban on filming in the departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where access control also applies.

You can only rent rooms for receiving citizens without permission. You can enter the territory of the police department with the permission of the head or deputy of a particular department. This provision is approved by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs No. 015 (03/11/12).

For example, it is possible to bring mobile phones into the territory of a sensitive enterprise, but filming there will not be possible. For violating the ban, a citizen will be subject to the application of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences, Art. 19.3.

You cannot take pictures anywhere using special and professional means, as well as hidden cameras. But this provision does not apply to mobile phones; with the help of these devices, the legislator believes, it is impossible to collect secret information.

To be used in court, video materials must be made legally competent. Therefore, not every film can be considered by the court as evidence.

It is quite possible for citizens to use audio recordings, videos made by surveillance cameras, and footage from mobile phones as evidence of violation of their rights when communicating with police officers. You don't need to have a professional camera with you to do this.

Responsibility for obstruction

What responsibility is imposed by law for obstructing filming, if in this particular situation it does not contradict the law, which allows openness and publicity for this type of activity? The main article that can be applied to a police officer is “Arbitrariness”.

If he did not cause harm to anyone because of the filming, then he will be punished for an administrative offense in accordance with the Code of Administrative Offenses, Art. 19.1. If, through his actions, a police officer caused harm to a citizen or his property, then the violation will be considered a crime in accordance with the Criminal Code, Art. 330.

For illegal obstruction of ongoing filming, an official must also be held accountable under Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for exceeding one’s powers. The legislator advises applying these standards if a police officer illegally deletes photographs from a camera’s memory card or video from a camera.

In this case, you can be guided by the Civil Code, Art. 1252. Video and photographic materials can be destroyed only if they are counterfeit, that is, they distort the situation or if a citizen violated copyright during their creation.

If a police officer confiscates a video camera or flash card, a citizen can be guided by Article 161 of the Criminal Code on open theft of someone else’s property. In this case, the value of the seized property does not matter. But in any case, the victim can only prove his case in court.

Rules of conduct for police officers when filming

Any government employee, including a police officer, must remember how to communicate with citizens when performing their duties:

Each police officer who begins to perform his duties in a public place must have an official identification card and be dressed in uniform with a special badge to identify him as a law enforcement officer.

When communicating with a citizen who wants to collect information about an incident on a video camera, as well as interview an official, the latter also needs to adhere to certain principles of behavior:

• when shooting, you should not look directly at the camera; when talking with your interlocutor, it is better to look at him;
• when communicating with a group of citizens, the police officer must look and answer the person who asked the question;
• during a conversation, you should not lower or roll your eyes, or look away to the side;
• you must behave with dignity and calm;
• It is imperative to monitor facial expressions and emotions, they must correspond to what was said;
• If questions are asked incorrectly, you should not be provocative or lose your composure;
• a law enforcement officer, when communicating with citizens or performing his duty, cannot keep his hands in his pockets or on his hips, wave them, gesticulate, etc.;
• if communication with a citizen with a camera occurs while sitting, you cannot sit with your legs wide apart or cross your legs and your hands on your knees, but it is better to cross your legs at the ankles;
• You also can’t look relaxed in front of a reporter.

How to avoid trouble

A citizen who wants to film an event with the participation of other citizens and police officers must understand that his incorrect behavior threatens, at a minimum, trouble. A police officer may illegally obstruct filming if he does not want his illegal actions to be recorded.

At the same time, he will correctly justify his ban and point to the legislative act. Therefore, a citizen needs to be informed on this issue, what can be done and when, and what cannot be done. Otherwise, he will simply become a victim of abuse of power by an official, which he cannot actually prove.

Additionally, by prohibiting the filming of these circumstances, the police officer can point out to the interested person that he is interfering with the police in carrying out their duties or making other claims that at first glance may turn out to be significant. At the same time, a citizen cannot resist the Russian police or its individual representative and disobey, otherwise he himself will fall under severe punishment of the Criminal Code.

If a police officer refuses to take photographs legally, then you should obey. At the same time, there are many nuances to determine the legality of what is said, so you should not be afraid and enter into dialogue.

When a police officer demands to immediately stop filming, the citizen is still advised not to rush, but to behave respectfully and try to ask the government official some questions:

• Are your requirements legal?
• why should I stop filming;
• you are engaged in secret activities;
• what legal norms do you follow;
• Based on what article of the law should I stop filming?

Often such a monologue on the part of a private “director” is enough, but not always. But if there are no witnesses nearby, then you need to be prepared that the police will simply take the camera away and erase the recording. There will simply be no evidence of his illegal actions.

What else is important to know

If an incident occurs between a police officer and a citizen who tried to film him while on duty, it is still necessary to find an opportunity to prove a violation of civil rights. For example, you can contact a higher official, involve private individuals nearby as witnesses, and use any legal and appropriate things in the given situation.

If possible, it is better to prepare and turn on another recording device immediately before shooting, which will be hidden from prying eyes.

If, after all, the camera or camera is broken, then do not despair, there is a memory card on which the footage remains. With the help of special programs, everything can be restored, of course, except the recording device itself.

It was approved by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs No. 664 and came into force on October 20, 2017. Indeed, the clause directly allowing drivers to film the actions of traffic police officers disappeared from it; it read as follows: “An employee should not interfere with the use of video and sound recording equipment by a road user, unless such is prohibited by law. The employee must inform the road user making the recording about the existence of the prohibition.”

Many so-called “experts” (in quotes), and various media outlets immediately began to say that from now on, drivers are prohibited from filming traffic police officers, and thus the rights of drivers are being infringed. Actually this is not true. Firstly, the Administrative Regulations, as a departmental document, apply only to employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and cannot change the rights and obligations of citizens. Secondly, permission for citizens to film the actions of police officers is contained in many other regulations that have higher legal force and which the same Administrative Regulations should not contradict. Here are just a few examples:

• Article 29 Constitution of the Russian Federation:

“Everyone has the right to freely seek, receive, transmit, produce and disseminate information by any lawful means...”

• Article 8 of the Federal Law "About the Police":

“The activities of the police are open to society to the extent that this does not contradict the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation...”

• Article 3 of the Federal Law “On information, information technologies and information protection”:

“...Legal regulation of relations arising in the field of information, information technology and information protection is based on the following principles:
...3) openness of information about the activities of state bodies and local self-government bodies and free access to such information, except in cases established by federal laws”;

Thus, it turns out that the redundant norm was simply removed from the regulations and this did not and could not entail any restrictions on the rights to filming.

Due to the uproar in the press and among drivers, the State Traffic Inspectorate (namely its head) even had to give a special explanation on this issue and send it to all territorial divisions:

“There are no provisions allowing a police officer to prohibit a road user from using photo, video and sound recording equipment without the presence of grounds provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation in the Administrative Regulations.”

Despite this, some unscrupulous or simply illiterate traffic police officers still try to prohibit drivers from taking photos and videos. And in case of disobedience, they try to hold them accountable under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Violations for disobedience to a lawful order of a police officer and threaten punishment in the form of a fine in the amount of 500 to 1000 rubles or administrative arrest for up to 15 days.

Remember, restriction of such a right is possible only in some cases specifically stipulated by law (implementation of security or operational-search measures in order to protect state and other secrets protected by law, at sensitive facilities or in territories where a regime of counter-terrorism operations has been introduced, etc. ) and in cases where your actions, for example, filming the scene of an accident on your phone, interfere with the inspector’s ability to carry out his activities. In this case, in any case, the traffic police officer must inform you about this and ask you to turn off the camera.

So, if you encounter such illegal demands from police officers, feel free to call the “helpline” (indicated on the sides of official vehicles), the management of the departments in which these employees work, higher authorities or the Internal Security Service.

The new administrative regulations of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate (order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs No. 664) came into force in Russia on October 20. In particular, the clause stating that the inspector should not interfere with video recording of communication with the driver was excluded from the document. Do drivers now have the right to film communications with a traffic police officer and in what cases is this prohibited? Journalists were told about this at a briefing at the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Altai Territory.

The item has disappeared, which means you can’t remove an employee?

The item has disappeared, but you can remove it. Nobody took this right away from citizens. From the administrative regulations, which, in essence, are instructions for traffic police officers, they only removed the redundant norm.

Note that the law on personal data allows you to film other people for personal or family needs without permission. In addition, the law on the police states that the activities of this department are open to society to the extent that this does not contradict the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation on criminal proceedings, on proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, on operational investigative activities, on the protection of state and other secrets protected by law, and also does not violate the rights of citizens, public associations and organizations.

If a traffic police officer interferes with filming or asks you to put away your phone, know that this is illegal in most cases.

So are there any exceptions?

According to the deputy head of the traffic police organization department of the regional traffic police, Sergei Syskin, exceptions are possible within the framework of security or operational investigative measures, as well as in order to protect state and other secrets protected by law. For example, an inspector may prohibit filming near strategic or military sites protected under the Official Secrets Act.

Also, restrictions on filming may be imposed by a traffic police officer when considering a case of an administrative offense, as well as in order to protect the rights of citizens, public associations and organizations. Filming will be prohibited if you interfere with the registration of a traffic accident.

By the way, the inspectors themselves now have the right to film on a service video recorder installed in patrol cars and at traffic police posts, on portable video recorders that operate non-stop, and on a personal phone if there were no witnesses when drawing up the protocol.

What happens if I disobey the ban?

Police have the right to charge violators for disobedience to their lawful orders (19.3 Code of Administrative Offences). This article threatens with a fine of 500 to 1000 rubles or administrative arrest for up to 15 days. But if the ban was illegal, the court must acquit you.