No video or photos: when a traffic violation fine is unlawful

In the court ruling underlying this topic, an important point for drivers was recorded: the police officer’s words alone – “I saw a violation” – are not sufficient to prove a breach of traffic rules and to impose a fine. Visual observation may be a starting ground for stopping a car or drawing up materials, but on its own it does not become proper evidence without additional objective recording.

What the law requires about evidence in traffic cases
In administrative offence cases (including traffic offences), the court must rely on real, verifiable evidence rather than assumptions or the inner conviction of an individual official. The law sets requirements for the relevance and admissibility of evidence:
the fact of a violation must be confirmed by specific data (photo and video materials, witness testimonies, diagrams, measurements, results of technical control devices, etc.);
these data must be obtained and documented in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law (service instructions, reports, reference to the technical device, time and place of recording, continuity of the footage);
any doubt as to the reliability of the evidence must be interpreted in favour of the person being held liable.

Within this model, a simple statement by the inspector – “I personally saw the violation” – is only his subjective perception. It may be the starting point for further verification but not the answer to whether the driver’s guilt has been proven.

Why visual observation alone is not enough
First, human perception is limited. An officer may be positioned at a particular viewing angle, at night, in poor visibility, under stress or amid multiple simultaneous events. Perceptual error under such conditions is entirely realistic. If the court is given no objective record (body‑camera video, dashcam footage, automatic enforcement cameras, photos, diagrams, etc.), it has no way to check whether the “picture in the inspector’s head” matches the actual road situation.

Second, without a record of the incident the defence is effectively deprived of the right to present counter‑evidence. When there are only the officer’s report and explanations, the driver can oppose them only with words. The process then becomes “one word against another”, which conflicts with the presumption of innocence: in case of doubt, preference must be given not to the prosecution but to the person being charged.

Third, the police officer’s ruling itself cannot be treated as evidence of a traffic violation; it is merely the document by which he formalises his conclusions. If those conclusions are not backed by proper evidence, the ruling cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and must be quashed.

Practical conclusions drawn by the court
In such cases, courts usually check whether:
there is video from a body‑worn camera, patrol vehicle or fixed camera in the file;
the protocol specifies which technical device was used for recording, its model, serial number, and the time and place of filming;
there are diagrams of the scene, measurements of distances, road markings and signs;
witnesses were questioned and whether their statements are consistent with each other and with the physical evidence.

If none of this is present and the file contains only a report, a protocol and wording such as “the inspector personally observed the violation”, the court has every reason to conclude that:
the objective element of the offence has not been proven;
the driver’s alleged guilt is based solely on assumptions;
the ruling must be cancelled and the proceedings closed due to the absence of the event or elements of the offence.

This approach accords with the general principles of the rule of law: the state cannot fine a citizen relying solely on the unverified opinion of its official.

What this means for drivers: how to defend yourself
Case law holding that visual observation without corroborating materials is not evidence gives drivers several important defence tools:

1. The right to demand that the police show the recorded materials. If the officer refers to a violation, it is logical to ask whether there is video or photos, from which devices, and whether this is reflected in the protocol.
2. The right to challenge the relevance and quality of recordings: whether there is continuity, whether the moment of the offence is visible, as well as the licence plate, road signs, weather conditions, road markings, etc. Video that does not provide a full picture may also be deemed improper evidence.
3. The right to challenge the ruling specifically because of the lack of objective evidence: in a court appeal, it is worth explicitly stressing that the only source of information is the officer’s subjective explanation, which is insufficient as a matter of law.

It should also be remembered that courts assess evidence in its entirety. If the driver has their own materials (dashcam video, GPS data, witnesses such as passengers or other road users), their presence can critically change the court’s final view of what actually happened.

Balancing road safety and human rights
Importantly, by refusing to treat “bare” visual observation as evidence, the court is not siding with violators. It is simply forcing the police to operate under transparent rules and to use modern recording tools. This encourages:
the development of body‑camera systems, patrol car recorders and fixed automatic enforcement cameras;
better quality of case documentation and better training for officers;
less room for abuse when a “violation” exists only in a report but not in reality.

As a result, all bona fide road users benefit: those who truly did not violate the rules and can prove it, and those who mistakenly believe they were right but, when shown the video, see exactly where they went wrong. Here, the right to a fair trial is directly linked to trust in the traffic police and to overall discipline on the roads.

If you have any questions or problems related to appealing traffic police rulings, recording traffic violations, or collecting and evaluating evidence in administrative offence cases, seek professional legal assistance — timely advice will help you choose the right strategy to protect your rights.

Author – Yuliia Popadyn, attorney in tax and housing law at the law firm “Legal Company ‘WINNER’.