In criminal proceedings, inquiry is a form of investigation. It is designed to facilitate the administration of justice and is essentially a procedural activity. This means that all activities and decisions made must comply with the CPC.
The task of the leadership of law enforcement agencies is to organize the work of subordinate employees in such a way that cases investigated within the framework of the preliminary investigation are initiated primarily by investigators. At the same time, the timely identification and consolidation of evidence, the identification and disclosure of the perpetrators of crimes, the maximum reduction in the gap between the commission of the offense and the sentencing depend on the efficiency in the activities of authorized units.
When the signs of a crime are established, according to which a preliminary investigation is mandatory, in accordance with the procedure established by Article 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a criminal case is initiated by the inquiry body. The implementation of urgent investigative actions is an integral part of the work of law enforcement officials. General rules for their implementation are enshrined in Art. 157 Code of Criminal Procedure. Next, we consider what urgent investigative actions exist and how they are carried out.
General information
The need for the investigating authority to carry out urgent investigative actions arises in cases where the investigator does not have the opportunity to start an investigation in a timely manner. In practice, it is not uncommon for an employee to initiate a case that is not relevant to him. In such cases, he also carries out urgent investigative actions. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, after their implementation, the investigator must refer the matter to the prosecutor. He, in turn, is obliged to send materials on jurisdiction.
Definition
The concept of “investigative action” is used in the CPC about 40 times. But the Code does not disclose this definition. It seems that the legislator considers investigative actions as a form of procedural activity aimed at collecting and verifying evidence.
The execution of operational-search measures "in hot pursuit" is recognized as inquiry. It is due to the need to quickly stop the crime at the time of commission or immediately after the commission. Inquiry usually involves the detention of suspects and other urgent investigative actions. These activities, carried out quickly, allow you to detect, save and consolidate evidence. Their effectiveness is of particular practical importance for the work of law enforcement agencies.
Urgent investigative actions are measures carried out by the inquiry body after the initiation of a case, the preliminary investigation of which is mandatory. They are aimed at identifying and fixing traces of crime, evidence, fixing, removal and investigation of which should be carried out immediately.
It should be noted that, unlike the previous CCP, the modern Code does not establish a list of urgent investigative actions. This means that any operational investigative measures carried out “without delay” can be recognized as them.
Efficiency criterion
For the investigating authority to carry out urgent investigative actions, there must be a risk of loss or damage of evidence, concealment of suspects. As soon as possible after receiving information about the assault, it is necessary to conduct a survey of the place, the corpse, examination, interrogation, search.
Urgent investigative actions are those measures, the implementation of which can provide a large amount of information. For example, promptly it is necessary to interrogate the victim or an eyewitness of the event. If property damage is caused by the crime, at the initial stage of the investigation it is necessary to plan measures aimed at its compensation. They may include searches of a suspect, seizure of his property, search for stolen property, etc.
Important point
The implementation of operational measures should not replace the preliminary investigation. Urgent investigative actions are carried out when appropriate. The inquiry body is not entitled to carry out activities that are not urgent. He also cannot carry out procedural actions that can predetermine the course of the investigation and can be committed exclusively by the investigator. This, in particular, is about bringing charges, choosing a preventive measure, terminating / suspending proceedings, drawing up an indictment, etc.
Investigator Powers
The inquiry body can carry out not only urgent investigative actions in criminal cases instituted by it, but also carry out the necessary operational-search measures provided for by law. The corresponding powers are assigned to the employees of the unit by the head. It should be borne in mind that the production of urgent investigative actions is not allowed by a person carrying out operational-search measures in the framework of the same case.
The interrogator is vested with the authority to independently carry out investigative and other procedural measures, and to make decisions. The exceptions are cases where the consent of the head, the sanction of the prosecutor or a court decision is necessary. The corresponding rule follows from the provisions of articles 20, 144-146, 145, 165 of the CPC.
Urgent investigative actions include meetings of an authorized employee with a suspect. However, for this it is necessary to obtain the written permission of the employee in whose proceedings the case is being processed.
Competence of inquiry bodies
The production of urgent investigative actions is determined by the functions of the relevant authority and the rules of personal and substantive jurisdiction. In the cases enshrined in paragraphs 4, 5 of the second part of Article 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the place of the attack is also taken into account.
The execution of urgent investigative actions by the ATS investigators is allowed in all cases investigated by the ATS investigators. Employees of bodies for controlling the turnover of narcotic and psychotropic substances carry out operational measures for crimes under their investigation (articles 229, 228.2 of the Criminal Code, for example).
The carrying out of urgent investigative actions by the Customs authorities is allowed in cases stipulated by parts 2-4 of Art. 188, as well as articles 190, 193, 189 of the Criminal Code.
Commanders of military formations and units, heads of military garrison and institutions carry out operational measures for crimes committed by military personnel, citizens at training camp, persons from among civilian personnel of the Armed Forces, other troops, formations in connection with the performance of their official duties or in the location of the garrison, institutions, parts, compounds.
The heads of the penal correctional institutions have the right to take urgent actions to infringe on the established order of service committed by the employees of these institutions, as well as by other persons who were on their territory.
Special subjects
According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, urgent investigative actions may be carried out by officials who are not directly related to the bodies of inquiry, but who in certain cases have the appropriate powers. Among such persons, according to part 3 of the 40th article of the Code, are included:
- Captains of ships (sea, river), located in the long voyage.
- The leaders of wintering, exploration parties located in remote areas.
- Heads of diplomatic missions and consulates of the Russian Federation.
These officials may initiate proceedings, take urgent actions, provided that the prosecutor is immediately notified. Decisions and materials are transferred to the prosecutor's office when the first real opportunity arises.
Features of urgent actions
They are related to the specifics of the procedural activity of the bodies of inquiry on crimes, a preliminary investigation on which is mandatory and optional. Unlike the second type of activity, in the first case authorized structures have the right to carry out exclusively urgent actions.
As mentioned above, in the modern CPC, the list of measures under consideration is missing. According to many lawyers, this decision of the legislator seems justified. However, according to some experts, it is impossible to recognize urgent actions related to the adoption of legally significant decisions in the case and the commission of which is allowed only after involving a citizen as an accused.
The sequence and duration of urgent investigative actions will depend on the nature and specifics of the assault. They are established by the official conducting the investigation. In one case, it is advisable to first conduct a survey of the scene of the alleged crime, in the other - the interrogation of the victim, for example. This provision applies to urgent actions carried out by the interrogating officer.
Procedural grounds
In some cases, the implementation of operational measures is accompanied by the implementation of coercive measures. For example, this may be an infringement within the framework of the law of property, personal rights of citizens and legal entities. Of course, the decision to apply such measures should be justified and lawful.
For example, if it is necessary to carry out a corpse inspection, search, seizure, examination, then the investigator is obliged to make an appropriate decision. To inspect a home contrary to the will of citizens living in it, seizure or search (including personal), except as provided for in Article 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seizure of documents and items containing information about deposits, bank accounts, seizure of correspondence, obtaining permission a court decision is necessary for its examination and seizure, control and recording of telephone conversations. Moreover, the law provides for exceptions.
According to the provisions of the 5th part of the 165th article of the Code, an inspection, search, seizure, personal search, which are urgent, can be carried out without a court decision. However, only an investigator is authorized to carry out such activities. The corresponding rule follows from the provisions of paragraph 1 of part 3 of the 41st article of the CPC. According to the norm, the inquirer is empowered to independently carry out investigative and other procedural actions, make decisions, except when it requires the sanction of the prosecutor, permission of the head of the body of inquiry or a court decision. Accordingly, the measures provided for in paragraphs 4–9 of Part 2 of Art. 29 Code, cannot be considered urgent.
Confrontation
This investigative action is considered urgent in some cases. However, this is not quite true. A confrontation is called the interrogation of two persons in the presence of each other. This investigative action is necessary if the persons previously gave conflicting testimonies regarding the same circumstances of the case. The confrontation is designed to eliminate these contradictions. The question of their materiality is decided by the person conducting the investigation. At the same time, the employee takes into account the assessment of the available evidence, compares them with the testimonies of citizens, between whom a confrontation will be held.
The contradictions in the testimony with conflicting information relating to the circumstances constituting the subject of proof and important for the proper assessment of the available materials (for example, the relationship between the accused and the victim) are considered significant. Often considered contradictory are the data obtained during interrogations of different citizens regarding the actions of the victim of the crime, the accused, the witness, the suspect before and after the act.
The information about the confrontation does not allow attributing it to urgent actions.
Investigative experiment
It also cannot be attributed to urgent action. An investigative experiment allows you to verify the factual information that was obtained during the interrogation of the accused, witness, victim, upon presentation for identification, examination of the crime scene and other events.
Before being presented for identification, a preliminary interrogation of a citizen is carried out. Its implementation is one of the prerequisites for making the right decision on the appropriateness and effectiveness of other procedural measures. As the Supreme Court points out, the omission of an investigator who had not previously questioned the victim about the features and signs of the subjects who are being identified should be considered a gross violation of the criminal procedure rules. Presentation for identification, therefore, often becomes an urgent investigative action, which contradicts the order of investigation.
Interrogation
This investigative action, as mentioned above, is among the urgent. The essence of the interrogation is to establish whether the image of the object that will be presented for identification has been preserved, and if it has been preserved, then to what extent, that is, exactly what signs the victim or eyewitness remembers well and whether he can point to them. Moreover, it is assumed by default that the interrogated citizen observed the object in connection with the crime. If he says that he does not remember the object or face, then presenting it for identification does not make sense.
Read test
This investigative action is aimed at establishing new facts of probative value for the case. It seems that verification of the testimony cannot be used to “consolidate” the information received by simply reproducing information obtained earlier during interrogation.
Given that this action follows the taking of evidence, it cannot be called urgent. Verification of information should be comprehensive and thorough.
Conclusion
Not all activities carried out by the inquiry officer, despite their evidentiary value, are covered by the concept of urgent investigative actions. Legislation significantly limits the authority of an official. According to some lawyers, this negatively affects the course of the investigation. At the same time, as other experts believe, the delimitation of procedural powers between the investigator and the interrogating officer is necessary to ensure the effective work of law enforcement agencies, the timely establishment of the circumstances of the crime, and the identification of citizens involved in it.
Many experts believe that in order to obtain high indicators during the investigation, it is necessary to adjust the wording of the 157th article governing the production of urgent actions. According to these authors, the norm should be stated as follows:
“If signs of a crime are identified, the preliminary investigation is mandatory, the inquiry body, in accordance with the rules enshrined in Article 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, initiates proceedings and takes urgent actions. The investigative measures provided for in paragraphs 4–9 and 11 of Part 2 of 29 are allowed. Article 181, 191-194 of the Code. "
Such a wording, experts believe, will make it possible to realize the full powers vested in the interrogators. This, in turn, will undoubtedly have a positive impact on indicators of the effectiveness of the fight against criminal offenses.
When performing urgent actions, the investigators should be guided by the procedural legislation, as well as other regulatory acts governing the implementation of operational search measures. It must be remembered that only those facts that are identified in accordance with applicable standards will have evidentiary value. If the established procedure is violated (for example, there is no sanction of a higher official), the materials received cannot be brought into the case, even if they directly prove the person’s involvement in the unlawful act.