On The Determination Of The Instantaneous Traffic Violations

In recent years, the instantaneous traffic violations cases is also increasing. Because this type of case has a transient characteristics, as well as during subsequent processing finds often lead to a lot of controversy, which involves more legal theory and practice.This paper, taking administrative punishment case as an example, from the perspective of legal norms and value measure and so on are analyzed, summarized the instantaneous time efficiency, procedures simple type traffic violations of the law, the basic characteristics such as evidence of oneness, refining and analyzes the legal problems that exist, trying to provide theoretical guidance for our country to solve the similar case.After extensive analysis, dispute such cases mainly in the following three aspects: First, if you can identify the fact that the administrative law; the second is the face value of the conflict, which should make a value judgment; the third is what kind of administrative proceedings applicable standard of proof issue. First of all, for "if the facts can be identified administrative law" issue, the supporters believe that, although there is insufficient direct evidence, but the executive summary punishment is unique, its treatment effect is more or less absorbed the behavior of the administration of justice has features legal effect, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the judicial officer will apply the appropriate standard of proof presumed facts identified administrative law; opponents argue that the evidence in this case is indeed less than the full standard, the facts can not be identified administrative offense. This controversy, mainly from the judicial presumption of public administrative penalties, and administrative processing effectiveness imitate anyone, three sides elaborate judicial consideration.Secondly, when "the face value of the conflict, what value should be judged ’problems, mainly related to conflict and post-conflict public interest and private interest of justice and order, what kind of value judgments should be made, which, in this article from the charity administrative priority principles and litigation value analysis to analyze two aspects. Finally, for "the case should be what standard of proof applicable" problem, with a view of the traditional administrative litigation should apply the standard of proof, because it is expressly made our administrative proceedings; another point of view, the dispute shall be applicable depending on the multivariate standard of proof, it is reasonable, not to mention China is now also being used in judicial practice this standard. These two views, mainly resolved from the burden of proof and standard of proof administrative proceedings two modules.Finally, in accordance with the recommendations to resolve doubts in the legal analysis. First, law enforcement administration, the easiest possible way is to help law enforcement officers to establish evidence of awareness, in addition to perfect the system of administrative procedures, to achieve the goal of procedural justice, procedural fairness by promoting administrative enforcement of fair result. Second, the conflict against the public interest and personal interests, we should insist on the priority of public interest, but also to achieve a balance between public interest and personal interests; clash against litigation value, value judgments based on the principles of value rank, but also taking into account other values. Third, the standard of proof to explore administrative proceedings, mainly from the middle, pluralism and true view of the three aspects of litigation and administrative proceedings should have intermediate standard of proof, between the requirements of the highest standard of proof in criminal proceedings and require a minimum of civil Litigation between proof standard. Also, when building a diversified administrative proceedings standard of proof should consider many factors. And the notion of a perfect proof standard, we must stick to the standard of objective truth not be moved, at the same time to absorb the legitimacy of legal truth theory factors.