In Odesa region, police failed to prove in court the disobedience of a detainee

The Tatarbunary District Court of Odesa Oblast closed the proceedings against a local resident who was accused of malicious disobedience to a police officer's request while performing his duties.

According to the court' s ruling, the police accused the man of being intoxicated, using foul language against the police officer, grabbing his uniform, threatening physical violence, and not responding to the police officer's lawful demands to stop these actions, thus committing malicious disobedience to police officers, which is punishable by administrative liability.

Instead, the man said that on January 27, 2026, he was at home doing household chores and at about 18:00 saw a police car pull up to the VAZ car he was using, which was standing near the store, so he approached them. As soon as he approached and identified himself, the police immediately began checking him in the Oberig database and informed him that he was wanted according to their data. After that, despite his explanation that he had a young child at home alone and needed to give her to someone to look after, they immediately sprayed him in the face with pepper spray, handcuffed his hands, put him in a police car and drove him to the territorial center for recruitment and social support. On the way, he said, the police beat him in the squad car.

However, when he was brought to the TCC building in Odesa, they refused to admit him because he had been beaten, so police officers took him to the city of Tatarbunary to the hospital, where he was left. At the hospital, he was examined and prescribed treatment.

At the same time, the tin man insisted that he did not resist the police officers and did not provoke a conflict. Moreover, a report on an administrative violation was drawn up against him in his absence.

The judges ruled that the report on administrative violation itself is not evidence of a violation, and the testimony of police officers cannot be objective evidence that they are subjects of the case. In addition, it has not been established what legal requirements were put forward to the police officer, whether he was on duty, or whether he presented his ID. The judges' doubts about the proof of guilt, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, are interpreted in favor of the person being held administratively liable, so the court closed the proceedings.

Кирило Бойко