Will Bill No. 13599 сhange the practice of emergency searches: a lawyer’s perspective

The issue of so-called “emergency searches” in Ukraine has long gone beyond a purely legal debate. It concerns situations where an investigator or prosecutor enters a person’s home or other premises without a judge’s warrant. The Constitution allows this only in exceptional cases — to save life and property or during the immediate pursuit of a suspect.

In practice, however, this procedure has long ceased to be an exception. In recent years, emergency searches have become a routine tool for law enforcement. The business community and human rights advocates have repeatedly stressed that this trend not only undermines the balance between investigative needs and citizens’ rights, but also creates significant room for abuse.

From Initial Attempts to a New Approach

Attempts to restrict this tool have been made before. The controversial Law No. 4555-IX, which curtailed the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, also amended the Criminal Procedure Code to allow emergency searches only in cases involving threats to life, health, or sexual integrity. However, the law had significant shortcomings in this part, and after public backlash, these restrictions were repealed — the previous wording of Article 233 of the CPC was restored by Law No. 4560-IX.

Now, the Verkhovna Rada has a new document on the table — Bill No. 13599, which in my view is more balanced and logical, though not without flaws.

What Changes

The bill proposes to clearly define the list of crimes in which emergency searches are permissible. These are serious criminal offenses against life, health, and sexual freedom: Articles 115–118, 121, 127, 146, 147, 149, 152, 153, 155, 156-1, 258, 258-1, and 259 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (murders, grievous bodily harm, rape, terrorist acts, etc.). The legislator’s logic here appears clear and consistent, as the Constitution of Ukraine explicitly identifies threats to life and health as grounds for entering premises without a court warrant.

It should be noted that it is impossible to completely deprive law enforcement of the ability to conduct searches without a court order, as this authority is granted by Article 30 of the Constitution of Ukraine. It states: “In urgent cases related to saving human life and property or the direct pursuit of persons suspected of committing a crime, another procedure for entering a home or other property, inspecting and searching it, may be established by law.”

The bill’s authors also propose adding Articles 368 and 369 of the Criminal Code (acceptance of unlawful benefits and offering such benefits). Including corruption offenses seems justified: these violations are often detected “in the act,” and predicting the location of the bribe transfer in advance is impossible. In such cases, speed is critical.

Procedural Safeguards

Importantly, the bill also introduces several procedural guarantees to protect human rights:

• Adversarial principle — a motion to approve a search after it has been carried out will be considered in the presence of the person whose premises were searched and their lawyer. This will allow the investigating judge to hear both sides and promptly respond to abuses.

• Right to appeal a judge’s order authorizing a search — an additional safeguard against baseless decisions, which should also reduce both the number of emergency searches and their subsequent unjustified “legalization” by courts.

• Assessment of the necessity to seize property — the bill would require the investigating judge, when reviewing an emergency search, to assess separately the necessity of seizing each item. This is a positive change, as in practice law enforcement often seizes everything that might hypothetically be of procedural or evidentiary interest instead of “saving” specific property. If adopted in its current form, the law could be expected to reduce both unwarranted searches and unjustified property seizures.

Expected Impact

The implementation of these changes could reduce the number of baseless searches and limit the practice of “legalizing” investigative actions after the fact through formal court approvals. For businesses, this would mean fewer unjustified disruptions; for citizens — greater protection of privacy and property.

Key Shortcoming

At the same time, the bill does not address one critical issue: it does not require the investigator or prosecutor at the scene of the search to issue a written order listing the specific property or evidence to be “saved.” Under Article 110 of the CPC, any procedural decision must be formalized by a written ruling, and such a provision could be an effective safeguard against arbitrary actions.

This requirement would allow the investigating judge to compare the grounds stated during the search with its actual results and protect all parties involved from abuse.