The concept and subject matter of inspection in Polish criminal proceedings

The examination of the scene is a fundamental procedural-criminalist activity aimed at detecting and securing traces, which can result in the identification of a number of valuable information enabling access to material truth. For this reason, the interest in the problem of viewing (it is worth noting that there is also a distinction between viewing persons, things and corpses) among proceduralists and forensicists is common and is a valuable subject of consideration.

Many publications have been devoted to the issues of the review, from strict criminal-trial to criminal. This illustrates the importance of the problem and proves that they are an interesting phenomenon, creating the opportunity for scientific development and stimulating research.

Review

The very definition of the concept by many authors was presented (and still is) slightly different. The reason for this is probably the fact that the examination is, alongside the hearing, the most important procedural action. An act which is also not defined by the Polish legislature in any procedural regulation[1].

If you try to define the term “view”, you should turn First, to the Polish Dictionary. This attitude is presented by both V. Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewcz and G. Kędzierska and M. Bethlehemski.[2]. So viewing is “watching, seeing someone, something; mirroring, reviewing”[3].

However, this definition cannot be taken passively as a basis for consideration, as only a linguistic approach to the issue of viewing may prove insufficient. Based on the linguistic definition, one might get the wrong impression that viewing is an act of observation[4], using only the sense of sight.

This is pointed out by Mr Horoszowski, suggesting that the name “view” must not imply any observation at the scene of the crime only by means of sight. An examination is also made with the senses of hearing and touch.5 Similarly, S.

Waltos believes, who clearly states that it is also a matter of knowing with other senses – hearing, smell, touch. This is also emphasised by Z. Checzot and T. Tomaszewski, considering the examination as an activity to which not only the vision organ is used, but also other senses, but also a rich set of technical measures[6].

The definition taken from the Dictionary of Polish is not the only encyclopedic source that can be found in the rich literature of the subject. On two such sources are cited by V. Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewicz and emphasizes their scientific value.7 These are: the Criminal Law Cache Encyclopaedia and the Law Encyclopedia.

In the first Source, dated to 1939, inspections are defined by determining what they are meant to lead to. The purpose of the examination is therefore to find traces of the act, to establish the facts, to reconstruct the way the crime was committed.

second, more modern source, because coming from 2000, determines that the examination is a procedural act of an evidentiary nature which may concern the place, person and property, and consists in revealing and perpetuating the characteristics, status of the place, location of the objects in order to clarify the circumstances which are the subject of criminal proceedings.

Both of these definitions emphasize the purpose of the examination and give priority to it in their consideration.

one of the most extensive definitions of the concept of forensic scrutiny includes J. Sehna of the Year 1948.

He states that “views consist of direct observation of all those perceived by the human senses of objects and phenomena of the outside world, a statement of the existence or absence of which, in a given local-time situation and of their characteristics and properties, may relate to facts and circumstances which are essential to the case”[8].

It emphasizes the role of human senses, not only the sense of sight; it also emphasizes the aspect of place, time and the role of viewing as a comprehensive study.

A similar approach to the viewing is presented by Z. Checzot and M. Czubalski, claiming that the viewing consists of accurate familiarization with topography and situational properties of a certain space (open space or room) and systematic search for possible objects or traces that may have a bearing on the case.[9]. They therefore stress one from the basic objectives of the survey, which is the exploratory objective.

The analytical definition of the survey is given by M. Kulicki, L. Stępka and V.

Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewicz, suggesting that the examination is not only the perception of physical phenomena and their registration, but above all the analysis of sensory perceptions, the synthesis of causal-effectual situational systems, the formulation of makeshift and subjective versions of different degrees, the modification of the course of the survey and the search for missing hypothetical data.

The review is an ongoing revision verification and an ongoing logical analysis of the collected material by deductive and analogous means, which is regarded as a permanent state of intellectual activity of the procedural body and its accompanying specialists[10]. Similarly, the problem of viewing sees S.

Czerw, recognizing it as a tactical-technical activity, carried out in a criminal process, consisting of systematic and detailed making observations, studies, analyses of a given site, aimed at reconstructing the course of the event, fixating the state of affairs, revealing and perpetuating traces and other sources of information.

All these actions are clearly aimed at the most broad and objective explanation of the event, the finding of its circumstances and the detection of the perpetrator[11]. M. Goc also portrays his view.

It shall consider as an examination a procedural action in which the investigating authority, after having examined in detail their subject matter, which may be the place, person, thing or delay, undertakes an action involving the detection, safeguarding and preliminary examination of the criminal evidence widely understood, in order to clarify the nature and circumstances of the event and to identify its perpetrator[12].

The author himself emphasizes that this definition shows how important an activity, in the context of obtaining evidence, is to be viewed. It's hard to disagree with that.

1. Hanusek, on the other hand, is considered to be activities which are carried out only at the scene. In addition to the examination, he mentions in this group activities such as: penetration of the site, search of the site, forensic experiment in the form of reconstruction, local vision, location display, location indication, interview and examination of the body on the site[13]. The author also stresses that the examination is both a procedural exercise, the legal basis of which is Article 207 k.p.k.[14], and criminal, which means that in order to make it happen, you should use the methods developed by forensics. T. Hanausek the notion of viewing (place) defines as an activity that involves a direct knowledge of the sensual portion of space or room[15]. Like the authors mentioned earlier (J. Sehn, P. Horoszowski) points out that other senses, such as hearing, touch or smelling, can be used in addition to the obvious use of the sense of sight. This seems to be a clear observation that allows the viewing, as a process-criminalist act, to carry out an investigative and investigative function.
2. Waltos also offers an interesting definition of the survey. According to him, it is a sensual examination by a procedural authority of the place, body of a person or thing, in order to reveal their characteristics (of evidence) which are relevant to the outcome of the process or the disclosure of the source of evidence (things whose characteristics, i.e. the means of proof, will also be the subject of this activity)[16]. This is the definition of visual inspection as a process action. This is consistent with the interests of the author, who is distinguished by the knowledge of the Polish criminal procedure and is an authority in it.
3. Holyst also cites such a view, stating that the examination is an important criminal and procedural act (meaning to highlight the criminalisation as first), because it provides significant and often direct news about the crime and the perpetrator[17]. It further argues that the conduct of the examination is subject to the type and scope of the event, which is subject to a certain general principle. This principle states that the examination is part of the necessary criminal action, where there is a presumption that the criminal action has left traces which, duly disclosed and secured, will be used in the process of determining the circumstances of the incident and the perpetrator of the criminal act[18].

Another definition of viewing is presented by R. Kmiecik and E. Strzebowicz. The authors divide the viewing into viewing in a broad and narrow sense. In the first the case of examination, in legal language, is any observation and research activity aimed at the use for evidence of any material, i.e.

the substance and phenomenal (energy) properties of so-called physical evidence sources (‘tracks’)[19]. An examination in a broad sense may include, inter alia, the opening of a body, a local vision carried out by a court involving the parties at the place of the proceedings and an investigation, i.e. an overview of the stricto sense.

When defining the concepts of investigative examination, authors support the regulation under Article 207 k.p.k. They also add the statement that investigative investigations, carried out immediately after the crime at the crime scene, fulfil the function of ‘recording-perpetuating’ evidence, as well as the function of ‘investigative’.

The purpose of the examination is to find and secure evidence for the court, which, much later, already in the jurisdictional stage, may be limited only to reading the protocol from investigative inquiries or, at most, to personal performance of a local vision of a control or general information nature[20].

The multiplicity of the definition of viewing makes it possible to conclude that viewing is an act that raises interest among both forensics and among experts in criminal proceedings. This cannot be surprising because they have an important investigative and evidence function. In an excellent way, they can be helpful in detecting the doing of the act, securing the traces, and hence, in later just judging the alleged perpetrator. However, there is no doubt that the examination is a procedural-criminal act.

Subject matter of examination

The important importance in the designation of the subject (object) on which inspections may be carried out is, first of all, Article 207 k.p.k. Paragraph first the article clearly indicates that the general subject of the examination may be: place, person or thing. In addition, it is worth highlighting the value Article 209 k.p.k.

This article in the paragraph first contains the wording which can be presented as follows, if there is any suspicion of criminal manslaughter, a mandatory examination of the corpses should be carried out. A further one was therefore clearly indicated, fourth subject matter of examination, or body.

What is more notable, all objects that are inspected are located In one of These four the categories and each of them, from a legal point of view, must be individualised[21].

Watching Things

According to T. Hanausk, an examination of things is a processal and at the same time a criminal activity, consisting of a direct knowledge of a movable thing, in order to identify the object of an inspection and to identify its characteristics or to disclose and secure any evidence of an incident that may be on the subject[22].

This definition shows the importance of viewing and their practical value, which is confirmed also in the case of an object, which is a moving thing. Thus, the direct purpose of examining the matter is to identify it and to secure any traces that may help to link it to the event. T.

Hanausek also suggests that the procedural body can work independently, as well as use the expert's assistance (expertisation) to properly examine the matter, detect appropriate traces and properly secure it. G. Kędzierska and M. Bethlehemski are in a similar position.

They claim that a thorough, thorough examination of things can already help at this preliminary stage to formulate the modus operandi of the perpetrator[23].

As to the very definition of the thing as an object of review, M. Kulicki, V. Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewicz and L. Stępka, they consider that it is any material object that can by virtue of its existence and location be a forensic trail or a carrier of traces (substance, deformation, phenomenal features).

Thus, according to such reasoning, there may be individual objects (including corpses, living or dead animals) or isolated from the set, e.g. one hair, one a blade of grass, one tree)[24].

It wonders that the authors consider the corpse to be things, for in literature it is common to separate this specific object from the concept of the thing or person.

Review

The notion of examining a person in the Polish criminal trial should be directly linked to specific participants of the criminal trial, such as: defendant (relatively suspect), suspect, victim, witness.

It is necessary in this regard to take account of the codex rules which specify precisely in what situations and activities the persons mentioned above are required to submit to.

The accused, therefore, on the basis of Article 74(2)(1) k.p.k., is obliged to undergo external examination of the body and other tests not connected to the integrity of the body.

In addition, in the sentence second the consent, in particular, to collect the defendant's prints, photograph him and to show him for exploratory purposes to other persons is also expressed.

Similarly, this regulation concerns a suspect, and the legal basis for this statement is Article 71(3) k.p.k., which reads as follows: ‘If this code is used in the general sense of the term ‘defendant’, the relevant provisions shall also apply to the suspect’.

As with the accused (suspected), the institution of the person's inspection was formed in the case of the suspect (74 section 3 (k.p.k.).

Interesting regulation also includes Article 192a(1) k.p.k., which provides that in order to limit the circle of suspects or establish the evidential value of the traces disclosed, fingerprinting, hair, saliva, handwriting attempts, smell, photographing or fixating the person's voice, may be collected or recorded, collected or fixed material which is unnecessary for the proceedings must be immediately removed from the file and destroyed.

As for the victim, it's based on Article 192(1) k.p.k., it must not oppose sightings and tests not combined with surgery or observation in a medical establishment if the criminality of the act depends on its health. In any case, the witness must consent to body inspection, medical or psychological examination.

This is the same as the regulation contained under Article 192(4) K.p.k.

The purpose of the examination of the person, as in the case of an inspection of the matter, is to identify him or her and to detect traces of the incident concerned on his or her body or clothing[25]. It is also worth trying to define the person as the subject of the survey. T.

Hanausek takes the view that the subject of the examination of the person is his or her body surface and his or her clothes, at the time of the event or where he or she is at the time of the inspection. The Lapidar definition of the person is taken by M. Kulicki, V. Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewicz and L.

Stępka, shortening it to the minimum necessary. They therefore recognize that the person is the body of a living man, along with the wardrobe on him[26]. Such definition shows that not only the person as such is subjected to an examination, but also to what he is wearing and what he is carrying.

As regards the specificity and uniqueness of the examination of the person, in particular, this is expressed in the standard contained under Article 208 k.p.k.

This article says that an examination or examination of the body, which may cause a person subject to an examination to feel ashamed, and thus undoubtedly difficult to accept, should be done by a person of the same sex, unless there are particular difficulties.

This regulation should be assessed positively, as each person should be treated appropriately and respected.

Body inspection

The body is a specific subject of inspection, so the legislator, probably aware of this, clarified the issue under Article 209 k.p.k, in paragraphs numbered 1 through 3, and under Article 210 K.p.k.

Therefore, Article 209(1) The examination of the body (and its opening) shall always be carried out if there is suspicion of criminal manslaughter. This is a basic regulation, which provides a legal basis for mandatory examination of the corpses.

Paragraph second The article states that the investigation of the corpse is carried out by the prosecutor and, in court proceedings, by a medical expert, if possible in the field of judicial medicine. However, in cases of urgency, the police shall carry out the inspection, with the obligation to inform the prosecutor immediately.

Important for the examination of the body is section 3 Article 209 k.p.k. It contains a rule that the examination of the body is carried out where it is found. E.

Żywucka-Kozłowska notes and denounces the situation when the detailed examination of the bodies at the location of their finding is waived, in view of the fact that the autopsy was carried out at a later date. Only during the examination of the body at the location of the body can such important information (e.g.

time of death), specific temperature of the body, postmortem concentration or development, and the distribution of Precipitation spots be precisely established.[27]. section 3 prohibits the movement or movement of bodies without necessity until the prosecutor or the court and the expert arrive. Article 210 k.p.k.

in turn allows the relevant judicial authority (court or prosecutor) to order the removal of bodies from the grave in order to carry out their inspection or opening.

During the examination of the corpse, they shall be described in the minutes, their location, their clothing or other characteristic appearance. The examination of the corpses is an extremely complex activity due to the object itself, as well as the conditions (place of occurrence) where they should be carried out.

They require thorough knowledge, experience and thoroughness. Researchers of this matter (also M. Wałkiewicz[28]), and in particular E. Żywucka Kozłowska, calling for professionalism and appreciation of the rank of examination of corpses as an extremely effective process-criminalist act.

Organisation

one T. Hanausek formulated the most interesting definitions of the place. He stated that viewing is both a processive and a criminal activity (i.e. requiring forensic methodology), which consists in a direct understanding of the sensual cut of space or room.

The purpose of such an inspection in turn is to detect, investigate and secure all sources of information (especially traces) about, inter alia, the location, event, circumstances of events and persons and their roles in the event[29].

However, it should be admitted that researchers (both forensicists and carnists and proceduralists), as much as the viewing of the place itself, have been interested in the term "place of occurrence" as such.

As K. Witkowska notes, Article 207(1) k.p.k. does not explicitly define the location of the inspection.

The author also suggests that the examination, which is intended to provide knowledge of the substantive means of evidence relating to the subject of criminal proceedings, is undoubtedly a procedural act related to the place of the offence (criminal offence)[30].

Article 6(2) Criminal Code[31] states, in turn, that the prohibited act is considered to have been committed at the place where the offender acted or failed to act for which he was obliged, or where the effect of the prohibited act was or was intended to occur.

Such definition of an occurrence in the penal code plays a leading role in determining the jurisdiction of the local court. Criminology also uses this definition, specifying the place to be inspected due to an event.

The value of this definition of the place of the incident seems to be confirmed by Mr Horzowski, suggesting that the examination of the place (both in legal and criminal terms) concerns not only the place understood as part of the space, but also other areas which remain in connection with the case under investigation[32]. Also, Z.

Checzot and T. Tomaszewski state that “the place of the event” is not a clear concept and should be understood in various ways.

They shall distinguish the location after first as an area of direct execution of an act declared a criminal offence by law, or the place where the offender acted or failed to act, to which he was obliged; second as a place where any result of a criminal act in the form of concealment of the perpetrator, concealment of items derived from the crime, after third: as a place where any action related to a prohibited act has occurred[33].

At the same time, they add that this is not only the area designated by the code rules, but also the place where various phenomena or human activities of the interest of law enforcement agencies occur.[34]. B.

The holyst in turn describes the place of the event as not only the place of disclosure of the act, but also the place where there are traces related to the event[35]. Author distinguishes further two elements in terms of the concept of viewing of the place: spatial and object element.

In general terms, the spatial element defines the limits of viewing in space, e.g. a specific building, a forest area, and a specific element second refers to the type of test object, i.e. ground or building[36]. However, G. Kędzierska and M.

Betleszewski present the most universal and common definition of the scene in forensics, writing that a certain part of the space in which something happened is considered an event, which is the subject of proceedings[37].

According to some researchers, this definition, although popular, is not very precise and does not, in fact, represent the whole concept of "place of occurrence". Any other place where there were or should have been traces, the grounds for planning the crime may also be considered as the site of the incident, i.e.

preparation, access, access, distance from action or cover-up[38].

The concept of trace and its classifications

The trail, as in the case of the concept of examination, is not clearly defined in forensic and process literature. The multitude of attempts to define what is a “track” creates a wide range of opportunities to discuss this issue. J. Sehn has already portrayed the forensic trail as an element that distinguishes three beings.

The trail should therefore be understood as a change, as a mark or as a reflection[39]. This attempt to determine the trace already shows how wide the conceptual range it contains. This concept is discussed in more detail by R. Zdybel.

According to him, it may primarily be a print of a body or a residue of a substance (for example, it may be secretion, smell as a chemical compound) or another material effect of action on various objects[40].

It is also clear that a trace in the legal and process sense is a kind of material result of an act (any event), appearing primarily as a characteristic of the appearance, properties of the position or presence of the object in a given place and time.

It is therefore an in-kind measure inseparably linked to an event which takes on the characteristics of an evidence measure as a result of a specific action[41].

Stricte's forensic definition of trace created T. Hanausek. Traces in the sense of forensics are, according to the author, any identifiable consequences of these changes in a particular passage of reality, the team of which either creates an event, or is closely associated with this event (e.g. escape tracks, traces of hiding prey, etc.).

Traces are primarily the result of certain behaviours, phenomena, facts. There are therefore causal links between these elements.

second A specific feature of the traces is their physical nature, the fact that they are possible to detect and investigate (so such reasoning excludes from the group of forensic traces both traces of memory and traces of omission)[42]. Behind T. Hanusk goes B.

Holyst, presenting a trace in forensics, as any change in appearance (colour, shape) or position of the object and deformation of the substrate, as well as the residue of things, substances that create an impression related to the event being investigated[43]. E. Gruz, M. Goc and J.

Moszczyński also emphasize the aspect of the link between the trace and the investigation.[44]. A bit more lapidarly the trail is defined by K. Witkowska. According to her, the trail is any remnant of an event a forensicist (expert) can perceive and use in a manner determined by the criminalist[45].

1. Zdybel believes that the attempt to classify traces in forensics is an extremely difficult, almost impossible procedure. Such a situation is affected by the fact that authors adopt different boundaries of divisions, as well as by their own approach to classification, scientific freedom. According to R. Zdibel, the most important thing in classifying traces is that they are protected in the right order, according to the proper system. It therefore states that the following traces may remain at the site of the event and that they (after their careful selection) may be classified. These are thus traces directly derived from the perpetrator (tracks of tools used, objects in the form of prints, prints, deformations, expulsions, etc.), traces left on the site deliberately and deliberately (false footprints which aim to mislead the procedural body), as well as traces from persons who are present before or after an event on the site which is not causally related to the event.[46].

The division of traces can also be made, due to the possibility of identifying the perpetrator of the incident, to direct and indirect[47]. Among the groups of direct traces are: fingerprints, lips, footprints. These traces allow the perpetrator to be exposed on the basis of his characteristics as a man. Indirect traces in turn relate to the tool, the object which the perpetrator used at the time of the crime (e.g. traces of firearms, mechanoscopy).

1. Holyst also undertook to classify traces. It splits tracks on three groups. first These include a large group of traces that do not affect the structure or shape of the substrate (such as fingerprint marks, stains of chemicals or thermal traces). second The group shall contain traces deforming the ground (e.g. tool tracks) or affecting its structure (signs of the use of explosives). In the third And a group of tracks includes objects abandoned or lost in connection with the crime[48].

However, T. Hanausek presented the basic and most common classification of forensic traces. This classification is of vital practical importance and is the basis for reflection on forensic evidence. It divides tracks according to two criteria. first of them puts emphasis on the outer form of the trace. The following shall therefore be distinguished:

• (a) surface prints (prints),
• (b) dig-in prints,
• (c) stains of various fluids and substances,
• (d) transformation of substances,
• (e) geometric changes in things,
• (f) things that have changed their position,

(g) the absence of things in the place where they were before the event[49].

second the criterion gives priority to criminal technology departments that investigate a particular type of trace. In this group one can be distinguished:

• (a) fingerprint traces,
• (b) mechanoscopic marks,
• (c) traces of firearms,
• (d) footprints and vehicles,
• (e) biological traces,
• (f) chemical traces,
• (g) thermal traces,
• (h) acoustic traces,
• (i) osmological (odorological) traces,

(j) microsigns[50].

Inspection of places and other procedural-criminal activities

There is no doubt that the viewing of the site is one with the most effective process-criminalist activities in the field of tracking, securing, etc. As a result, it may be possible to reach out to the perpetrator, determine the course of the incident and lead to a possible conviction.

However, when assessing the richness of both procedural and forensic activities, it should be noted that not only the viewing of places can lead to the objectives mentioned above. There are a number of activities that help procedural bodies to find the truth about what happened in a given place.

Of course, researchers pay attention to such a multitude of activities and are not indifferent to them. T. Hanausek points to a very extensive catalogue of these activities, calling them ‘actions at the scene’.

Among them, he mentions: an examination of the place (sensu stricte), as well as penetration of the place, a search of the place, a forensic experiment in the form of reconstruction, a local vision, a presentation of the place, an indication of the place, an on-site interview, and an examination of the bodies on-site.51 The last activity mentioned by T.

Hanausk, or examination of the body, is controversial. V. Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewiec considers that the examination of the corpse should not be separated from the examination of the site, as they together form a widely understood “view of the location of the body”.

He stresses that the corpse itself is an inextricable whole with the place and must be treated as a trace and their carrier[52]. Similarly, it undermines the sense of separating the site as a separate activity.

It suggests that this penetration is only a component of the viewing of the site, carried out at the beginning, helping to determine the actual area to be (or is) inspected[53].

Such a scientific dispute certainly fosters the development of forensics and allows for an even more in-depth analysis of individual activities, which, together with the examination of sites, are of vital evidence.

As T. Hanausek points out, the penetration of a place is not a regulated act in the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in view of the examination of the place, the activity is only technical, auxiliary (in itself it does not have an evident meaning)[54].

However, it allows proper examination of the site and, as has already been said, precise identification of the area in which the viewing activities will take place.

The author also lists the objectives of penetration, and they are as follows: general knowledge of the site, defining the limits of the site of the event and preliminary awareness of whether at any given location the inspection is possible[55]. Penetration can therefore take place before and after the inspection itself.

Penetration after viewing is intended to control and answer questions as to whether the designated place was the right place and whether there may be other traces outside that place, the protection of which requires an extension of the viewing area[56].

As can be seen, penetration performs important functions during the action on the site, namely the preparatory and control function.

Another activity is to search the place regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure under Article 219. Like an examination, so a search is a process-criminal act. The difference between these two activities is their purpose.

The investigation is strongly targeted at revealing and securing traces, the search in turn places emphasis on finding and retaining personal and factual evidence that is closely linked to the investigation and enables the detection of the perpetrator[57]. This is the fundamental difference between the two.

Similarities can be found in the search methodology. Similarly to the examination, an objective method is used when conducting the search, but as T. Hanausek notes, it is also possible to use a segmental method, which consists in dividing the space into segments and successively to search them.[58].

It is also worth paying attention to the forensic experiment, which is according to T. Hanausk, both a procedural action (Article 211 k.p.k.), as well as the criminal experience or reconstruction of the course of the investigation of events or their passages to verify the circumstances relevant to the case[59].

As far as experience is concerned, it is according to the author to check whether an event (or part of it) could have occurred at all. The reconstruction in turn is a reconstruction of the event[60]. In its definition, T. Hanausek draws attention to the Codex Regulation, as V.

Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewicz refers to it, admitting that the process-criminalist experiment is an extremely controversial activity, which raises many doubts. He supports the statement by J. Gurgul, who has no doubt that the content of the provision Article 211 k.p.k.

is incorrect in language-logical correctness[61], and the difficulty in determining what a trial experiment is, also the Supreme Court, trying to define this action[62].

Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that both the examination (Article 207(1) k.p.k.) and experiment (Article 211 k.p.k.) is a procedural activity carried out only by a procedural authority which may call upon them by an expert (Article 198(1) k.p.k.) or specialist (Article 205(1) (k)[63].

The researcher also stresses that the practice (police) most often combines elements of the experiment with the interrogation of the suspect at the scene, and the experiment itself brings nothing but waiting to confirm the crime.

The demonstration of the place, as well as the examination, is a process (regulated) action under Article 173 k.p.k.), as well as criminal, understood as an act, aimed at identifying the place shown as an event or place where traces or other sources of information about the event are found[64].

By definitely comparing the “view” and the “show”, there is no doubt that there is a difference between these activities. The difference is that viewing the site as the target is to reveal and fix traces, and to show the place on first The plan sets the identification.

Of course, both the inspection and the demonstration are subject to the obligation to record the minutes (the legal basis for such a statement is Article 143(1) k.p.k.).

one from the most closely related crime scene is a local vision. To the point so close that J. Widacki states that the local vision is a particular kind of viewing of the scene, however, explaining immediately that the vision is an action on the border of sight and experiment.

The vision does not protect traces and has a static character – this two aspects that distinguish vision from viewing and experimenting[65]. Similar similarities and differences between vision and viewing and experiment are also noted by T. Hanausek.

It clarifies its considerations by stating that the viewing is a ‘discovery’ activity (its aim is to detect new information and sources) and that the vision serves only as verification of facts already known.

Researchers also attempt to define a vision by claiming that it is a criminal act involving a direct knowledge of the sensual place of the event or a fragment thereof in order to verify whether the previously obtained information about that place or its passage is in line with reality or to clarify or supplement this information, or to remove or only explain the contradictions therein.66 R.

Kmiecik also draws attention to the comparable nature of the viewing and the local vision. According to the author, the local vision is a review of the scene of the incident by the court in the course of the main proceedings, involving the parties[67]. The local vision is also commonly referred to in literature as ‘secondary reviews’[68].

As to the legal basis of the local vision, the authors agree that this act has not been regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, and V. Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewicz discusses the issue of the local vision by examining Order No.

1426 Chief of Police dated 23 December 2004 on the methodology for the conduct of investigative activities by police services designated for the detection and prosecution of criminal offences, criticising the concluded Under section 93 Regulation concerning this activity[69].

So you can see how a thin border separates the viewing of the place from the local vision. Therefore, it is necessary to be extremely precise in trying to distinguish these two actions not to confuse them, which could result in inaccuracy.

The special links between the viewing and, this time, the hearings are emphasised by V. Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewicz. First of all, both of these activities aim at reconstructing past events, as well as revealing traces – in the hearing the procedural body reveals and perpetuates memory traces[70].

The hearing at the scene also facilitates recalling the facts, is more effective than the standard hearing outside the area of interest of the authority[71]. Among the issues of the interrogation at the scene, T. Hanausek points to its particular form, meaning an indication of the place.

The author considers that when the location is indicated, the interviewee may indicate a piece of space or room and recognise it as an event site, which may result in the conclusion that the person concerned is closely related to the event, or even a wanted perpetrator[72]. The hearing and its particular form, i.e.

the indication of the place, can be extremely useful as procedural – criminal activities, as they allow to reach the previously unknown facts, as well as confirm and specify those already known.

Legal basis for the examination

According to the view of the majority of researchers, it can be concluded that the examination was not regulated very widely in Polish criminal trial law. Nevertheless, undoubtedly the basic regulation contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure is Article 207, It's about looking at places, people and things.

This article, consisting of 2 the paragraphs, specify the subject matter of the review and order that the object in question is not affected during the operation. Moreover, the wording of the article shows that viewing is optional (by using the phrase ‘if necessary’).

The mandatory nature is, in turn, to inspect the bodies if there is a suspicion of criminal manslaughter – Article 209(1) K.p.k. section 3 the said article states that such examination is carried out at the location of the finding and that the bodies cannot be moved or moved until the expert and the prosecutor or court arrive.

Due to the inspection of the site also remains Article 212 k.p.k., allowing other evidence or interrogation activities to be carried out during the examination. It is also of particular importance to standardise the 298 section 1 k.e.

which gives the right to carry out an inspection of the authorised entities conducting the investigation, i.e. the prosecutor and the Police, and in the cases provided for in the Act, other authorities replacing the Police.

It is also not possible not to mention Article 308 k.p.k., which allows for the execution of an inspection in the context of ‘indispensable activities’, even before the decision to initiate an investigation or investigation.

Summary

The examination of the scene is an important procedural-criminalist activity, which has been of interest to researchers since the founding of forensic sciences. With technical progress, the way in which the screening is carried out will certainly change and it is worth following up on this aspect of the development of the activity.

New perspectives also appear in the possibility of making more detailed documentation, e.g. 3D scanning. Modern technologies will certainly affect the quality of the investigation and their results will interest the representatives of the doctrine.

___________________________________