In the Usman district, the driver was fined for failure to comply with the police demand to remove the tinting
Usmansky district court of the Lipetsk region considered the case of an administrative offense against a driver who did not comply with the legal requirement of a police officer

The Usmansky District Court of the Lipetsk region considered the case of an administrative offense against a driver who did not comply with the lawful request of a police officer.
The young man was found guilty under part 1 of article 19.3 of the administrative code of the Russian Federation and fined 2 thousand rubles. This was reported in the joint press service of the judicial system of the region.
As established during the proceedings, on August 5, 2026, a police officer issued a request to the driver to eliminate the technical malfunction of the Renault Logan car: the coating (tinting) that limited visibility from the driver’s seat should be removed from the front doors. However, on October 29, 2026, it turned out that the legal requirement was not fulfilled - the tinting remained in place. In other words, for almost three months, the driver ignored the order, continuing to operate the car with a violation that affects traffic safety.
After examining the materials of the case, the court found the young man guilty. When imposing punishment, data on the offender’s identity, his property status, as well as mitigating circumstances were taken into account. The court ordered an administrative fine of 2,000 rubles.
For drivers, this is a good example: the police requirement to fix a malfunction is not a formal paper, but a document that is mandatory. Ignoring such an order entails administrative responsibility, even if several months have elapsed since it was issued. The sanction of Part 1 of Art. 19.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation provides for punishment up to administrative arrest, so a fine of 2 thousand rubles in this case is a relatively mild outcome. The court took into account mitigating circumstances, but the fact of the offense itself remained proven.



