To the discussion about legal means of ensuring secret in operational-search activities
https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2024.8(1).121-130
Abstract
This article examines the demand for additional legal instruments to ensure operational secrecy in law enforcement agencies. It identifies certain inconsistencies and gaps in the current regulatory framework, calling for improvements to consolidate both public and intra-departmental instruments into a unified legal framework. The study aims to confirm the hypothesis that enhancing the legal provisions governing operational secrecy will contribute to the effectiveness of law enforcement operations.
The research employs a comprehensive analysis of existing laws, regulations, and practices related to operational activities. It explores the concept of operational secrecy and highlights the need for a coherent understanding of this legal category. Furthermore, it emphasizes the significance of confidentiality in operational activities and the associated challenges of regulating specific methods and techniques, considering their unique and dynamic nature.
The findings reveal two key directions for the further development of operational secrecy instruments. Firstly, the article argues that publicly disclosing detailed information regarding the essence, specific instruments, and methods employed in operational activities would be counterproductive and undermine operational effectiveness. However, it also recognizes the necessity of harmonizing the understanding and application of operational secrecy by providing a clear legal definition within the legislation governing operational and investigative activities. Therefore, it proposes amending the relevant provisions of the Law “On Operational and Investigative Activities” to encompass a comprehensive legal framework for operational secrecy.
Secondly, the research highlights that information regarding overt operational and investigative measures and their contents may indirectly or directly expose the interests of law enforcement agencies, reveal their tactics for gathering information, and compromise the effectiveness of their efforts to detect, prevent, and deter criminal activities and threats to national security. While administrative liability currently applies to breaches of emerging “operational secrecy”, violations of the “secrecy of investigation” fall under criminal liability, including imprisonment. Moreover, in certain cases, criminal liability exists for breaches of information protection rules even in the civil domain. Consequently, the article suggests exploring the balance between the level of responsibility and the potential damage caused to societal interests when imposing liability for breaches of operational secrecy.
To address the identified challenges, one potential solution could be the codification of operational and investigative norms. Such an approach would not only provide a systematic and structured presentation of laws governing operational activities but also facilitate logical and consistent links between the discussed legal framework and related branches of law.
In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of additional legal instruments to safeguard operational secrecy in law enforcement agencies. It calls for improvements in the current legal framework, emphasizing the need for a unified and comprehensive legal approach. By confirming the research hypothesis, this article provides valuable insights into enhancing operational secrecy and its implications for the effectiveness of law enforcement operations.
About the Author
S. P. Senchikhin
Branch of Gorbachev Kuzbass State Technical University in Novokuznetsk
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Stepan P. Senchikhin – lecturer, Department of Economics and Management
ResearcherID: ADS-1245-2022
7, Ordzhonikidze ul., Novokuznetsk, 654005, Russia
References
1. Znikin V.K. Problems of ensuring the security of participants in criminal proceedings. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo = Tomsk State University Journal of Law, 2016, no. 4 (22), pp. 36–41. DOI: 10.17223/22253513/22/5. (In Russ.).
2. Lobzov K.M., Gordienko V.V. Conspiracy and secrecy in operational-investigative activity (theoretical and methodological analysis). Operativnik (syshchik) = Field investigator (Sleuth), 2012, no. 2 (31), pp. 6–11. (In Russ.).
3. Mikhailov B.P., Khazov E.N. Actual issues of ensuring conspiracy in operational-investigative activities. Vestnik ekonomicheskoi bezopasnosti, 2016, no. 2, pp. 156–161. (In Russ.).
4. Pavlichenko N.V., Samodelkin N.V. Silence in the operational-search activity. Vestnik Volgogradskoi akademii MVD Rossii = Journal of the Volgograd Academy of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia, 2012, no. 3 (22), pp. 88–93. (In Russ.).
5. Pavlichenko N.V., Tambovtsev A.I. The principle of conspiracy in operational-search activity: conceptuality VS declarativeness. Trudy Akademii upravleniya MVD Rossii, 2019, no. 2 (50), pp. 58–63. (In Russ.).
6. Pavlichenko N.V. Rules of secrecy (ways to identify problems). Aktual'nye problemy bor'by s prestupleniyami i inymi pravonarusheniyami, 2006, no. 6, pp. 55–57. (In Russ.).
7. Pavlichenko N.V. Principles of conspiracy of operational-search activity. Politseiskoe pravo, 2005, no. 3 (3), pp. 81–83. (In Russ.).
8. Ponomarenko N.Yu. The concept of the principle of conspiracy of operational-search activity. Izvestiya Tul'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki, 2016, no. 3-2, pp. 395–399. (In Russ.).
9. Tambovtsev A.I., Pavlichenko N.V. Operational-investigative measures and investigative actions requiring judicial authorization: questions of correlation. Vestnik Kaliningradskogo filiala Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta MVD Rossii, 2017, no. 3 (49), pp. 7–10. (In Russ.).
10. Sinchenko G.Ch. Four steps to investigation. Operativnik (syshchik) = Field investigator (Sleuth), 2014, no. 4 (41), pp. 31–38. (In Russ.).
11. Khlobustov O.M. On the purpose and content of the principles of conspiracy, the combination of overt and covert methods and means in the operational-search activity. Operativnik (syshchik) = Field investigator (Sleuth), 2008, no. 3 (16), pp. 35–40. (In Russ.).
12. Cherepanov V.A. Constitutional and legal aspects of the operational-search activity. Gosudarstvo i pravo = State and Law, 2012, no. 10, pp. 78–81. (In Russ.).
13. Shumilov A.Yu. In search of the essence of contemporary operational-investigative activity: a view by syskologist. Operativnik (syshchik) = Field investigator (Sleuth), 2014, no. 2 (39), pp. 3–9. (In Russ.).
14. Bovin B.G. Psychological model of professional suitability for operational-search activities. Psikhologiya i pravo = Psychology and Law, 2021, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 126–137. DOI: 10.17759/psylaw.2021110409. (In Russ.).
15. Davydov S.I., Petukhov E.N. Problems of protection of witnesses from among the confidants: criminal procedural aspect. Izvestiya Altaiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2018, no. 3 (101), pp. 38–42. DOI: 10.14258/ izvasu(2018)3-06. (In Russ.).
16. Kolesnikov A.V. Using the results of operational-search activity in the detection and investigation of crimes against the person. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Yuridicheskie nauki = RUDN Journal of Law, 2016, no. 1, pp. 79–92. (In Russ.).
17. Zazhitsky V.I. On the use in proving the results of operational-investigative activities. Gosudarstvo i pravo = State and Law, 2010, no. 7, pp. 61–71. (In Russ.).
18. Zhuk O.D., Shevtsova L.V. Comparative legal aspects of conducting individual investigative actions and operational-search measures in international criminal prosecution. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo = Tomsk State University Journal of Law, 2019, no. 34, pp. 71–88. DOI 10.17223/22253513/34/7. (In Russ.).
19. Shumilov A.Yu. Operative-search dictionary, Guide. Moscow, Russian Customs Academy Publ., 2018, 216 p. (In Russ.).
20. Znikin V.K. Classification of operational-search activity and its features, in: Yakimovich Yu.K. (ed.). Pravovye problemy ukrepleniya rossiiskoi gosudarstvennosti, Tomsk, National Research Tomsk State University Publ., 2002, pp. 63–67. (In Russ.).
21. Pavlov A. D. Ways to reduce the staff turnover of internal affairs bodies engaged in countering terrorism. Sovremennye tendentsii v ekonomike i upravlenii: novyi vzglyad, 2016, no. 41-1, pp. 68–72. (In Russ.).
22. Kryazheva S.G. The problem of studying the causes and conditions of personnel turnover in law enforcement agencies. Gosudarstvennaya sluzhba i kadry, 2020, no. 1, pp. 101–102. DOI: 10.24411/2312-0444-2020-10025. (In Russ.).
23. Kostina E.V. The phenomenon of the prestige of service in the internal affairs bodies as an indicator of the assessment of staff turnover. Psikhologiya i pedagogika sluzhebnoi deyatel'nosti = Psychology and Pedagogics of Official Activity, 2022, no. 3, pp. 47–53. DOI: 10.24412/2658-638X-2022-3-47-53. (In Russ.).
24. Senchikhin S.P., Znikin V.K. Some issues of legal regulation of the operational-search activity “Poll”. Operativnik (syshchik) = Field investigator (Sleuth), 2018, no. 1 (54), pp. 51–55. (In Russ.).
25. Leoshkevich E.V. Current issues of bringing to administrative responsibility for the dissemination of disclosure of information, access to which is limited by federal law. Evraziiskaya advokatura = Eurasian Advocacy, 2022, no. 4 (59), pp. 41–45. DOI: 10.52068/2304-9839_2022_59_4_41. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Senchikhin S.P. To the discussion about legal means of ensuring secret in operational-search activities. Law Enforcement Review. 2024;8(1):121-130. https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2024.8(1).121-130
Views:
377
Email this article 