The issue of conducting searches in urgent cases without a ruling by an investigating judge has long been one of the most controversial in Ukrainian criminal procedure. It is particularly relevant in the context of the application of the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allow entry into a person's home or other property without a court order in exceptional cases. The legislator actually provides for three grounds for such entry:
- to save human lives;
- in case of direct pursuit of persons suspected of committing a criminal offence;
- to preserve property;
While the first two grounds — saving human lives and direct pursuit of suspects — have relatively clear criteria for application, the ground related to “preserving property” remains the most subjective and problematic from the point of view of law enforcement.
Legislative fluctuations and their significance
In most cases, the decision to conduct a search on grounds of urgency is made by the investigator or prosecutor directly on site and is based on their subjective belief in the expediency of such investigative action. It is for this reason that searches conducted without a ruling by an investigating judge constitute one of the most contested categories of investigative actions in judicial practice, particularly in disputes over the legality of searches and recovery of seized property.
Legislative amendments adopted in 2025 are indicative in this context. In July 2025, amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine defined a list of articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine permitting searches in urgent cases. These included, in particular, certain crimes against the foundations of Ukraine's national security, the life and health of individuals, sexual freedom and sexual integrity, as well as public safety.
A week later, these amendments were cancelled, and the text of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine was returned to its previous wording. Despite the short-term nature of these amendments, the very fact of their adoption indicates that the legislator recognised the existence of a systemic problem — the abuse of the right to conduct searches in urgent cases.
Practical application: from “urgency” to procedural pressure
An analysis of current law enforcement practice reveals the most common situations in which investigators and prosecutors justify the urgency of a search by the need to seize or preserve evidence. First and foremost, these are:
- funds that are allegedly the subject of unlawful gain;
- mobile phones and other electronic devices belonging to “potential” suspects in criminal proceedings.
At the same time, the practice of conducting searches in office premises or at production facilities of companies remains widespread, during which economic activity is effectively paralysed by the seizure or prohibition of the use of documentation, products and equipment.
Special attention should be paid to situations where, after conducting a search of a person's home with the permission of an investigating judge, investigators proceed to search a vehicle for which no search warrant has been issued, on the same grounds of “urgency”, resulting in the vehicle being seized. Under such conditions, there is a de facto restriction of the owner's rights to possession and use without any court decision, which contradicts the basic guarantees of property rights.
Position of the Supreme Court
In its practice, the Supreme Court consistently emphasises the need for documentary and factual justification of the urgency of a search. The court requires confirmation of a real, rather than hypothetical, threat of destruction or loss of material evidence.
In particular, in its Resolution, the panel of judges of the First Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court noted that in each case of urgent entry into another person's property, the prosecution must clearly define and justify the grounds for urgency provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In the absence of such justification, the search is deemed illegal and the evidence obtained is inadmissible.
At the same time, investigating judges routinely approve urgent searches even where justification is merely formal or minimal. This, in turn, gives rise to justified criticism from the legal community regarding the use of this mechanism as a tool for procedural pressure.
In cases where nothing is found or seized during an urgent search, investigators neglect even to apply to the investigating judge for legalisation of such a search.
Conclusions
An analysis of criminal procedure legislation and current judicial practice allows us to draw the following conclusions:
- Urgent searches without a ruling by an investigating judge are an exception to the general rule and require clear, evidence-based justification;
- The Supreme Court is consistently raising the bar for the content and factual substance of arguments regarding urgency;
- There is a tendency to use this procedure as a “manual” tool of pressure by pre-trial investigation authorities;
- Guarantees of the rights of suspects, property owners and lawyers require enhanced judicial control;
- Entering a person's home without proper legal grounds constitutes a crime under the Criminal Code - violation of the inviolability of the home.
All this indicates the need for further improvement of laws on urgent searches and enhancing procedural control by court and procedural guidance in order to minimise the risks of violating fundamental rights and freedoms.
*The article was initially published by YURLIGA in Ukrainian language on February 18, 2026
By Oleksii Miagkyi, Counsel, and Taras Vasylenko, Attorney at Law, Hillmont Partners
