A driver is stopped by a Ukrainian traffic police officer, Inspector Volodymyr Vasylvych. The officer claims the driver was speeding, but the driver disputes this and asks the officer to show evidence. The driver is also concerned about a mysterious device the officer is using, which the driver believes may be a breathalyzer. The driver repeatedly asks the officer to explain the device and to show his identification, but the officer is evasive and aggressive.
The situation escalates, with the driver accusing the officer of trying to extort money from him. The driver asks to file a complaint and requests the officer's identification and badge number. The officer eventually provides his identification, but the driver is still not satisfied and continues to press for answers.
The driver suggests that the officer may be using the device to intimidate or extort money from drivers, and accuses him of corruption. The officer denies any wrongdoing and claims that he is simply doing his job.
Throughout the conversation, the driver is polite and respectful, but firm in his demands for transparency and accountability. The officer, on the other hand, is increasingly aggressive and evasive. The situation remains unresolved, with the driver still seeking answers and the officer refusing to provide them.
Here are the key facts from the text:
1. A traffic stop occurred, and the driver was asked to show their driver's license.
2. The driver's name is Volodya.
3. The driver was driving at a speed of 117 km/h.
4. The driver denied drinking alcohol.
5. The inspector asked the driver to take a breath test using a device.
6. The driver refused to take the test, citing the need for the inspector to show evidence of an offense.
7. The inspector's name is Volodymyr Vasylvych.
8. The inspector is a DPS inspector in his third year of service.
9. The driver was asked to show their car documents, but the inspector did not provide any evidence of an offense.
10. The driver suggested that the inspector was using an auxiliary tool that was not certified.
11. The driver asked the inspector to show the device, but the inspector refused.
12. The driver and the inspector had a disagreement about the use of the device.
13. The driver and their companion asked to file an application for an unprovoked stop.
14. The inspector refused to accept the application.
15. The driver asked the inspector to provide their data, including their name and badge number.
16. The driver's companion offered to write down the inspector's data.
17. The driver mentioned that they have the right to file an application for an unprovoked stop, which is a right in Ukraine.
18. The driver's companion suggested that the inspector's actions were unreasonable.
19. The driver and their companion asked to submit a complaint against the inspector.
20. The driver mentioned that they will take the matter to court if necessary.