TANGGUNG JAWAB KEPOLISIAN DALAM PENGAMANAN BENDA SITAAN SEBAGAI BARANG BUKTI DALAM PENYIDIKAN PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA (STUDI KASUS DI POLRESTA MATARAM)
Abstract
The confiscation of evidence or confiscation is carried out by law enforcement officers for the level of examination, especially for investigation purposes in terms of sufficient evidence, and Responsibility as law enforcement officers in securing confiscated objects. Investigators cannot arbitrarily seize goods without following the rules outlined by laws and regulations. They must comply with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code because this is closely related to the dignity of a person guaranteed by the State, government, law, and every citizen as values. HAM. The purpose of this research is to find out the form of Responsibility of investigators for the evidence confiscated at the Mataram Police and what obstacles are faced by the police in securing confiscated objects as evidence in the investigation of criminal cases at the Mataram Police. This research is empirical legal research, which is legal research conducted by collecting data from primary data or data obtained directly, either through observation or direct interviews. The type of approach used is the statutory approach, the conceptual analysis approach, and the case approach. Legal materials are processed deductively, drawing conclusions from a general problem to a specific one. The results of the study show Responsibility In handling confiscated objects by investigators, the investigators are fully responsible for the seized evidence and are prohibited from being used by anyone sanctions investigators who misuse evidence can be subject to disciplinary punishment in the form of a written warning; delay in attending education for a maximum of 1 (one) year; postponement of periodic salary increases; maximum promotion delay 1 (one year; emotional mutations; release from office; placement in a special place for a maximum of 21 (twenty-one) days. The investigator is fully responsible for confiscating evidence and prohibited from being used by anyone. The sanction for the investigator who misuses the evidence may be subject to disciplinary punishment in the form of a written warning; delay in attending education for a maximum of 1 (one) year; postponement of periodic salary increases; postponement of promotion for a maximum of 1 (one) year; emotional mutations; release from office; placement in a special place for a maximum of 21 (twenty-one) days. Coordination to determine the proper storage place for confiscated objects. Small-sized items will be stored in the sub locker. Mataram City Police evidence unit. The obstacles faced in the storage of evidence are the absence of adequate unique and permanent facilities in the form of a room or warehouse that can use for storage of evidence at the Mataram City Police, the lack of maximum supervision of the evidence, either from investigators or from other existing personnel. At the Mataram City Police, individuals still use evidence for personal gain.
References
[2] Andi Hamzah, 2005. Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
[3] Andrias Duri Dona Sandi, 2013. Kajian terhadap asas Praduga Tidak Bersalah dalam Proses Penyidikan di Polres Mataram, (Disertasi Universitas Mataram), Mataram.
[4] Ansori Sabuan, 1990. Syarifudin Pettanase, dan Ruben Ahcmad, Hukum Acara Pidana, Angkasa, Bandung.
[5] Azis Syamsuddin, 2011, Tindak Pidana Khusus, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
[6] Azzamul, 2007, “Cyber Crime di Indonesia”, Tesis, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Surabaya, Surabaya.
[7] Bambang Poernomo, 1990, Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Seri Hukum Pidana, Jakarta.
[8] Barda Nawawi Arief, 2010, Kebijakan Legislatif Dalam Penanggulangan Kejahatan Dengan Pidana Penjara, Genta Publishing, Yogyakarta.
[9] C.S.T. Kansil, 1986, Pengantar Ilmu Hukum dan Tata Hukum Indonesia, Balai Pustaka, Jakarta.
[10] Erdianto Effendi, 2011, Hukum Pidana Indonesia, PT Refika Aditia, Bandung.
[11] Erwin Swasta, 2009. Tanggung Jawab Dalam Penyimpanan Benda Sitaan Negara Dalam Kasus Tindak Pidana,(Skripsi Univesitas Mataram),Mataram.
[12] Henry Wibowo, 2009, Tinajuan Yuridis Pinjam Pakai Barang Bukti dalam Kasus Tindak Pidana Pencurian Kendaraan Bermotor, (Skripsi Universitas Mataram), Mataram.
[13] John Z.Loudoe, 1982, Hukum Acara Pidana Kita ,C.V. Sindoro, Surabaya.
[14] Laden Marpaung, 2009, Proses Penanganan Perkara Pidana (Penyelidikan dan Penyidikan), Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
[15] M.Karjadi, R Soesilo, 1997, Kitab Undang Undang Hukum Acara Pidana dengan penjelasa resmi dan komentar, Poelita, Bogor.
[16] M.Yahya Harahap, 1993, Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP, Pustaka Kartini.
[17] M.Yahya Harahap, 2000. Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP Penyidikan dan Penuntutan,Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
[18] Meylani Putri Utami, 2016, Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Penyaalgunaan Narkotika, (Skripsi Universitas Hasanudin), Makasar.
[19] Moeljatno. 2008, Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Raneka Cipta, Jakarta.
[20] Mukti Fajar dan Yulianto Achmad, Dualisme Penelitian Hukum Empiris & Normatif, Jakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2010.
[21] P.A.F. Lamintang, 1997, Dasar-dasar Hukum Pidana Indonesia, PT, Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.
[22] Peter Mahmud Marzuki. 2007. Penelitian Hukum. Persada Media Group. Jakarta.
[23] Poerwadarminta, 1976. Kamus Umum Bahasa Indonesia, Balai Pustaka, Jakarta.
[24] Ratna Nurul Alfiah, 1989. Barang Bukti Dalam Proses Pidana,Sinar Grafika, Jakarta
[25] Roeslan Saleh, 2003 Perbuatan Pidana Dan Pertanggungjawaban pidana, Aksara Baru, Jakarta.
[26] Ruslan Renggong, 2016, Hukum Pidana Khusus: Memahami Delik-Delik di Luar KUHP, Kencana, Jakarta.
[27] Soekidjo Notoatmodjo, 2002, Metodologi Penelitian, Rineka Citra, Jakarta.
[28] Soerjono Soekanto,1998, Penelitian Hukum Normatif, Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
[29] Sudarsono, 2007. Kamus Hukum, Cetakan 2, PT. Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
[30] Sudaryono dan Natangsa Surbakti, 2005, Buku Pegangan Kuliah Hukum Pidana, Surakarta: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.
[31] T.N. Syamsah, 2011, Tindak Pidana Perpajakan, Alumni, Bandung.
[32] Tim Penyusun Pusat Bahasa, 2002. Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia ,Balai Pustaka, Jakarta.
[33] Waluyadi, 1999. Pengetahuan Dasar Hukum Acara Pidana, Mandar Maju Bandung,
[34] Wirjono Prodjodikoro, 1985. Hukum acara pidana di Indonesia, Sumur Bandung, Bandung.
[35] Wirjono Prodjodikoro. 2003. Tindak Pidana Tertentu di Indonesia, PT Gresco, Jakarta.
[36] UUD 1945.
[37] Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana.
[38] Undang- Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 8 tahun 1981 Tentang Hukum Acara Pidana.
[39] Undang - Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 2 Tahun 2002 Tentang Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia, dan Indonesia.
[40] Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 58 Tahun 2010 Tentang Perubahan Atas Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 27 Tahun 1983 Tentang Pelaksanaan Kitab Undang - Undang Hukum Acara Pidana.
[41] Keputusan Menteri Kehakiman RI Nomor : M.04.PR.07.03 Tahun 1985 Tentang Organisasi dan Tata Rutan dan Rumah Penyimpanan Benda Sitaan Negara.
[42] Peraturan Menteri Kehakiman Nomor : M.05.UM.01.06 Tahun 1983 tentang Pengelolaan Benda Sitaan dan Barang Rampasan Negara di Rumah Penyimpanan Benda Sitaan Negara.
[43] Kusnu Goesniadhio Slamet, 2004, Harmonisasi Hukum dalam Perspektif Perundang- undangan, Jurnal Hukum, Volume 11, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta.
[44] http://yogyacarding.tvheaven.com/cyber_crime_tugas_besar_dunia_ti_indonesia.htm (Diakses pada tanggal 25 Juli 2022 ).
[45] http://www.ubb.ac.id/menulengkap.php?judul=DEFINISI%20PENGERTIAN%20DAN%20JENISJENIS%20CYBERCRIME%20BERIKUT%20MODUS%20OPERANDINYA&&nomorurut_artikel=353 (Diakses pada tanggal 25 Juli 2022 ).
