Review

The article is dedicated to the analysis of the provisions of the Article 269 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and to the determination of the grounds for classifying visual monitoring as a covert investigative (search) action on individual species.  From this perspective, the legislator introduced evaluates criteria differentiating visual monitoring.  The copyright vision of approaches to the definition in the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine different kinds of visual monitoring are given. The promising ways of legal, organizational and tactical measures of each species are outlined.

It was determined that the Article 269 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine introduces unjustified legal classification of the covert investigative (search) actions for certain types depending on the nature and number of objects which is monitoring, and used means. Thus, the conflicts and gaps that lead to problems in practice activity of the pre-trial investigations bodies and operative subdivisions, acting on behalf of investigator or prosecutor, are formed.

The rules of this article should be formulated otherwise: using the differentiation of the individuals which are the subject of monitoring on known (established, identified) and unknown (not established, not identified). In addition, visual monitoring need to differentiate is being done by voluntary agreement and persons without such consent.  Each type of visual monitoring should receive some using procedural grounds.

The distinction between surveillance of an individual, an object or a place is not justified not only in legal but also in organizational and tactical plan. That why, it is advisable to allocate surveillance from permanent positions (stationary) and the surveillance in movement (movable).

Key words: visual monitoring; covert investigative (search) action; classification; pre trial investigation.