As part of the LHS School of Criminal Law, Taras Onyshchenko, an attorney at Barristers Law Firm, gave a lecture on border controls and searches, and on how to recover property that has fallen into the hands of law enforcement.

The speaker noted that a search is conducted to establish the facts and circumstances of an offense and to locate evidence. A search requires a warrant from an investigating judge. However, the investigating judge grants permission to search for evidence, but not to seize it.

Taras Onyshchenko recommends, first and foremost, carefully reviewing the investigating judge’s order. During the investigative proceedings, when the investigator decides to seize certain property, it is advisable to make comments, raise objections, and ask questions regarding the purpose for which such property is being seized.

According to the lecturer, the property being seized can fundamentally be divided into two categories. This includes property that the investigating judge authorized the search for—and which is explicitly specified in the ruling—or property that is not mentioned in the ruling but which the investigator decided to seize because he or she believes it is relevant to the criminal proceedings. Such property is referred to as temporarily seized.

According to Taras Onyshchenko, it is practically advisable to include comments in the search protocol itself, since there are instances where comments that investigators ask attorneys to write on separate sheets of paper are occasionally “lost.” Therefore, it is necessary to carefully consider the structure of comments and objections.

There is a common practice: even if property is listed in the investigating judge’s ruling, such property may be returned on the grounds that it lacks evidentiary value.