{"id":584454,"date":"2026-04-24T18:42:04","date_gmt":"2026-04-24T15:42:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/2026\/04\/584454\/my-godfather-will-call-back-mykhailivskyi-will-call-the-drunk-driver-of-a-porsche-cayenne-in-korabelnyi-argued-with-the-police\/"},"modified":"2026-04-24T18:42:07","modified_gmt":"2026-04-24T15:42:07","slug":"my-godfather-will-call-back-mykhailivskyi-will-call-the-drunk-driver-of-a-porsche-cayenne-in-korabelnyi-argued-with-the-police","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/en\/2026\/04\/584454\/my-godfather-will-call-back-mykhailivskyi-will-call-the-drunk-driver-of-a-porsche-cayenne-in-korabelnyi-argued-with-the-police\/","title":{"rendered":"\"My godfather will call back; Mykhailivskyi will call,\" the drunk driver of a Porsche Cayenne in Korabelnyi argued with the police"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the Korablevnyi District of the city of Mykolaiv<\/strong> the driver of a Porsche Cayenne<\/strong> was found guilty by the court of refusing to undergo a sobriety check. It concerns Kucherenko Artur Oleksandrovych<\/strong>, whom patrol officers stopped in the evening of 02.09.2025<\/strong> on Bohoyavlenskyi Avenue, 255<\/strong>. The ruling in the case was issued on 15.01.2026<\/strong> by the Korablevnyi District Court of the city of Mykolaiv<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

According to the materials of the case<\/a>, patrol officers noticed signs of alcohol intoxication in the driver: smell of alcohol from the mouth, facial redness, and behaviour that did not match the situation. The police offered him to undergo a check first at the place of stop using a Drager<\/strong>, and also at a medical institution, but the man refused. It was precisely this refusal that became the basis for bringing him to responsibility under part 1 of Art. 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In court Kucherenko Artur Oleksandrovych<\/strong> did not admit guilt. He claimed that he does not drink alcohol at all, and that he allegedly has a personal conflict with the patrol officer who stopped him, which has been going on for about two years. The driver also explained that he did not get out of the car immediately because he was worried that they might be employees of the TCK<\/strong>. His lawyer asked the court to close the case due to the absence of an offence.<\/p>\n

However, the court examined the video recording from the patrol officers\u2019 body camera and described the driver\u2019s behaviour in considerable detail. The ruling shows that after the stop the man communicated with the police through a slightly lowered window, showed documents, did not hurry to get out of the car, and instead of undergoing the check began to call someone among his acquaintances. It was then, as recorded in the court decision, that the phrase was heard that “your kum from your battalion will call you back now”.<\/p>\n

Further, as the court established, the driver several times asked the patrol officers to wait “two minutes”, said that he would now call Mykhailievskyi<\/strong>, and that someone was supposed to call them. In other words, instead of immediately undergoing the check and removing all questions, the man tried to delay the procedure with phone calls and references to some acquaintances. The court perceived this as part of behaviour aimed at evading the check.<\/p>\n

The ruling separately describes that initially the driver verbally agreed to the check, but in fact never underwent it. He exited the car, continued talking on the phone, moved around near his vehicle, then sat inside again and closed the door. Eventually he refused to undergo the check entirely. After that the patrol officers informed him that they would draw up a protocol under Art. 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses<\/strong>, and also removed him from driving the vehicle.<\/p>\n

The court also noted that the arguments about fear of the TCK are not supported by the video. On the recording, in the judge\u2019s assessment, Kucherenko Artur Oleksandrovych<\/strong> behaved calmly, walked around the car, approached the patrol vehicle, freely used his phone and did not look like a person who was genuinely afraid of detention. For this reason the court found that version unconvincing.<\/p>\n

An interesting nuance in this case is that an internal investigation regarding one of the patrol officers revealed certain procedural violations by the police officer. In particular, the internal conclusion stated that not everything was properly explained to the driver. But the court explicitly stated that this document is not an automatic ground for closing the case and is assessed together with other evidence. The decisive factor remained the very fact of refusing the check, which was confirmed by the video.<\/p>\n

As a result, the court found Kucherenko Artur Oleksandrovych<\/strong> guilty of committing an administrative offence and imposed a fine of 17,000 hryvnias<\/strong> with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 1 year<\/strong>. In addition, an additional UAH 665.60<\/strong> of court fees was collected from him.<\/p>\n

In fact this story ended for the driver like this: the attempt to “resolve the matter” with phone calls, mentions of a “kum” and Mykhailievskyi<\/strong> did not work. The court in Mykolaiv<\/strong> sided with the patrol officers and found that refusal to undergo the check by itself is sufficient grounds for punishment.<\/p>\n

Previously we wrote:<\/h3>\n