The Comparative Analysis of Law Enforcement Operations and Investigative Activities on the Example of Examination of Premises, Buildings, Structures, Crime Scene Examination, and Search

Abstract

In practice, criminal intelligence as a form of control is often carried out without proper procedural arrangement. This issue is very urgent and problematic as, according to the criminal procedure code, evidence obtained when examining a crime scene in respect of procedural legislation violation often cannot be considered admissible. The paper considers the existing forms of gathering evidence and facts of a crime when investigating a crime scene; two of them – inspection and search – are procedural; one is a criminal intelligence action – premises, buildings, structures, terrain compartments, and vehicles examination. The authors carried out a comparative analysis of these forms and concluded on the gaps in the Russian criminal procedure legislation. The paper gives a brief overview of obtaining evidence when investigating crime scenes in the legislative acts of the former republics of the Soviet Union, in particular the Republics of Kazakhstan, Belarus, Estonia, and Azerbaijan. The authors considered the legislation on the operative search activity of foreign countries. The paper presents a comparative table reflecting the positive and negative aspects of the applicable legislation, the advantages and disadvantages of investigative activities and criminal intelligence under the study; studies the issues of entering the materials of operative search activity into the crime case file. As the basic conclusion, the authors highlight that by nature and inner content, the investigative activities under the study (a crime scene examination, a search) and criminal intelligence (premises, buildings, structures, terrain compartments, and vehicles; public and non-public examination) duplicate each other in some degree.