Good afternoon, dear friends, on our blog we regularly cover judicial practice in administrative cases in the field of illegal archaeological activities. Often the cases themselves are absolutely absurd. However, there are also cases the study of which helps me build my own understanding of actions and behavior in the event that God forbid I have to communicate with law enforcement officers about my favorite hobby.
Screenshot of a page from the VK social network. Used as an illustration and has no relation to the described court cases.
Links to the website of court decisions are clickable.
Case No. 12-41/2020 Complaint from Kostrov K.Yu. on the decision of the Ikryaninsky District Court
The crux of the matter. On January 14, 2020, the Ikryansky District Court of the Astrakhan Region decided to recognize Kostrov K.Yu. of committing an administrative offense under Article 7.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Carrying out archaeological activities without obtaining an open sheet. The court imposed an administrative penalty in the form of a fine of 2,000 rubles and confiscation of equipment – Garrett 750, X-Terra 750 metal detectors.
Citizen Castrov did not agree with the confiscation order and filed a claim in the higher court. There he presented documents (lease agreements for the MD) stating that the metal detectors cannot be confiscated since they are the property of third parties. Judge of the Astrakhan Regional Court Stepin A.B. reviewed the complaint and made a decision. The decision of the Ikryansky District Court is upheld and the Garrett 750 and X-Terra 750 metal detectors will not be returned.
The arguments of the complaint that documents on the ownership of metal detectors were not taken into account are untenable, since, as can be seen from the case materials and testimony in the court of second instance, their owner is Kostrov K.Yu.
The arguments of the complaint that he does not agree with the detention are also untenable, since they do not indicate the absence of an administrative offense.
Comment: the details of the case itself based on the court decision are not clear, however, it can be accurately established that the accused did not agree with the decision of the court of first instance, which is very rare in this judicial practice, and filed a complaint with the higher court, however, they ignored that fact that illegal archaeological activities can only be carried out on archaeological heritage sites.
Case No. 5-177/2019 Citizen A.V. Kudryavtsev Spassk-Ryazan City Court.
The crux of the matter. Citizen Kudryavtsev regularly traveled to the fields of the Ryazan region to practice his favorite hobby – instrument search. Sorry for the allegory, but our law enforcement agencies are already churning out dozens of similar cases a year in the Ryazan region alone, but this does not teach the cops anything. But here's the point.
Numerous lovers of instrumental detecting, after digging with a metal detector, rush to post their finds on the VK social network as quickly as possible. The most interesting thing is that in these typical cases, I was not able to find a single example where a hacker was brought in for posting a photo on Facebook or Instagram. And this will need to be studied separately. So, people post photos of finds from the fields on their own accounts, and then they are surprised. Why are they being called in for questioning? As I said above, there were dozens of similar cases in the Ryazan region alone over the past 2019. But why did I single out this particular court case as interesting? But the fact is that I really liked the part about administrative punishment.
I quote:
Taking into account the nature of the administrative offense committed, and its consequences, personal data, and the absence of circumstances aggravating administrative responsibility, the court comes to the conclusion that it is possible to appoint Kudryavtsev A.N. punishment in the form of a fine, since the specified punishment in this case will ensure the implementation of the tasks of administrative responsibility.
Comment: As you can understand, the accused got off with only an administrative fine without confiscation of the metal detector. And here we need to draw a parallel with the previous administrative case. Where the accused did not admit guilt, did not cooperate with the investigation, and probably without thoroughly knowing the legislation on the subject of the proceedings, decided to prove his innocence. What is the result? Visual. And in this case? The accused admitted guilt, agreed with the investigators' arguments and received a fine of only 2,000 rubles. Dear friends, I do not urge you to go and immediately give up at every opportunity; each of us has our own civil rights and freedoms. However, there are very, very few competent and qualified lawyers in the field of archeology in our country. So, decide for yourself, if you are nevertheless accepted into the field with a metal detector and a shovel in your hands, what tactics and strategy of behavior you will choose for yourself.
Case No. 5-21/2020 Ryazan District Court of the Ryazan Region, citizen Yanin M.A.
And, again, an absolutely typical case, initiated on the basis of photographs on the VK social network. And here, as in the previous example, the accused completely agreed with the accusation. He cooperated with the investigation and received an administrative fine of 2,000 rubles. However, why did I like this case and decided to put it last in the note? And the point is this very explanation of why the metal detector cannot be confiscated from the accused? Let me note right away that the typical and usual formulation in such cases is the explanation that the accused sold the metal detector to an unidentified person for cash. What was clear was that the accused was being prosecuted on the basis of photographs on social networks. This is a so-called deferred administrative offense, therefore no one demands to hand over the metal detector and shovel itself, and for the investigation it is enough to explain that the accused is no longer the owner of the specified technical equipment.
So, in this administrative case, I was pleased with the creative approach of the accused. Because his explanation of where the metal detector went can easily be considered the best of what I have ever read.
Yanin M.A., pleaded guilty at the court hearing and testified that in early December 2019, on a plot of land located near
, he was searching for metal objects using a metal detector. While leaving the search site, he accidentally ran over a metal detector with a car wheel and then threw it away in a nearby container.
This, dear readers, is our news today. I want to wish everyone good luck, and in this case, not only with good signals under the coil. But also dig in such a way as not to attract special attention to yourself.
