On examination tactics

Traditionally, there are three main points of view on the nature of examination: examination as a kind of inspection; examination as a kind of expert studies; examination as an independent investigative action with signs of inspection and expert study. The dual nature of examination traditionally provokes debate about the nature of the investigative procedure, the priority of directly search or expert research beginnings in it. Until now, some researchers believe that Art. 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is characterized by the dual nature of examination. It can be argued that today the tactics of examination qualitatively lags behind the level of the development of the tactics of other investigative actions. It is suffice to say that in a significant number of textbooks there is no paragraph in which issues of tactics of examination are considered separately, the last thesis on aspects of forensic examination was defended 35 years ago, the next-to-last 50 years ago. Criminology has developed a number of rational recommendations as conditions for examination: 1) examination can be made only after initiating a criminal case; 2) examination is appropriate when there is no need to appoint a forensic examination; 3) persons to be examined are the accused, the suspect, the victim, the witness; 4) if necessary, an expert is involved in the production of examination. What is the difference between examination and inspection or expert study? What caused this new investigative procedure to appear and gain recognition? The answer seems obvious: speed, combined with the lack of surplus criminal procedural regulations, and simplicity arising from the maximal visibility of traces of the crime. It is these features that determine the direction and content of the tactics of examination. Making decisions about the production of examination can not be considered technical work, because the description of the facts established in the decision is actually a rationale for making examination rather than identification or forensic examination. The list of circumstances in this part of the decision should be detailed and comprehensive. It seems advisable to have an extremely small time interval between the time-date of familiarizing the person to be examined with the decision about the production and the time-date of the beginning of this investigative action.

Keywords

Authors

References