Current laws in Russia outline administrative detention as a penalty for a range of traffic violations, including driving under the influence or driving without a valid license, for up to 15 days. This detention can occur regardless of whether intoxication or license loss is proven, and in some instances, even less serious infractions can lead to arrest.
Regional traffic police units have warned about arrest risks for drivers of vehicles with tinted windows. A fine of 500 rubles is prescribed for this violation, yet in practice officers often require the tinted film to be removed along with a penalty slip. If the tint is not removed when stopped again, the driver may face penalties under a different provision.
Officials state that failure to comply with a lawful request to remove tint may lead to administrative responsibility under part 1 of a specific article of the Code of Administrative Offenses, when the police advise removal and it is not carried out. This warning is published on the official site of the traffic police department of Primorsky Krai.
There have been reports from Saratov that in the spring, 22 drivers were detained for not removing the tint film, with 10 of them subsequently arrested. As alternatives to detention, the law provides fines up to 4,000 rubles or forced labor up to 120 hours; however, lawyers emphasize several key considerations when police attempt to apply this scheme.
Some observers describe the practice as a ruse, noting that a driver may be told to remove the tint while the vehicle could belong to someone else or to a warehouse. In such cases a smart driver can argue that the car is not theirs and has no relation to the tinting. This view was shared by lawyer Leonid Olshansky in an interview with socialbites.ca, who notes that the tactic is used not only for tinting that fails to meet light transmittance standards but also for other vehicle modifications.
The technical regulation on vehicle safety requires documentation of changes to a vehicle’s design, including equipment not included in the factory design, such as winches or electric bumpers on certain vehicles. While administrative detention is possible for such violations, many question its legality, arguing that practical compliance may trump legal sufficiency. This perspective was offered by Sergey Radko, a lawyer with the Svoboda Vybor automobile movement, in an interview with socialbites.ca.
Penalties for violations like driving with improper tint or lacking OSAGO insurance involve fines, and there is debate about imposing additional requirements in these cases. Observers suggest that a police officer might pressured a driver to comply, yet if the driver violates traffic rules again, authorities could be summoned to enforce discipline. Radko comments that such scenarios can escalate if not addressed carefully.
Arrest for unpaid fines or leaving the scene of an accident can be part of the legal framework. The Code of Administrative Offenses provides up to 60 days to pay fines, after which a driver may face detention and additional penalties. In cases where fines are issued by human officers rather than automated cameras, detention can be applied for delayed payment, according to Radko. When fines are issued by automated cameras, detention for delay does not apply.
Leaving the scene of an accident can also trigger detention or other detainment measures, particularly for repeat offenders or serious violations. Legal experts warn that avoiding detention by staying at the scene is not always possible, and courts may impose detention for those who repeatedly violate traffic rules or leave after an accident with serious consequences. A practical point raised by Olshansky is that detention might be extended if a driver ignores police requests or loses their license yet continues to drive, and for cases involving incomplete removal of tinting, similar penalties may be imposed.
Overall, the line between enforcement and legality in these traffic-control measures is a subject of ongoing discussion among lawyers, drivers, and civic groups alike. The conversation continues about how best to balance public safety with fair application of the law, especially in cases involving color tinting and other vehicle modifications, where the boundary between permissible adjustments and illegal alterations can be ambiguous. (Source: Svoboda Vybor movement, socialbites.ca)