Digital
technology is changing how serious crimes are investigated in Indonesia, with
tools such as CCTV, telecommunications data, GPS-related location information,
and digital forensics providing investigators with additional evidence. A 2026
legal study by Syaiful Bahri and Triono Eddy of the Master of Law Program at
Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara (UMSU), Medan, examines how technology
can support the investigation of the murder of a former member of the Langkat
Regional House of Representatives (DPRD Langkat). The study is published in the
Journal of Legal and Cultural Analytics (JLCA) and focuses on the
legal basis and evidentiary requirements for using technology in criminal
investigations.
Technology Is
Reshaping Criminal Investigations
Traditional
criminal investigations often depend on witness testimony, confessions, and
physical evidence. Bahri and Eddy explain that these forms of evidence can
sometimes be affected by limited memory, psychological pressure, or
manipulation.
Digital
technology provides investigators with additional sources of information that
can be systematically examined and scientifically verified. CCTV can provide
visual records of events, while digital forensics can recover information from
mobile phones, computers, social media accounts, and other digital systems.
Telecommunications
data also provides important investigative information. BTS (Base Transceiver
Station) data can help investigators determine the approximate location
associated with a mobile device at a particular time. Call data records,
electronic messages, transactions, audio recordings, videos, and other digital
information can provide additional evidence for reconstructing events.
The researchers
place these technologies within the broader framework of Scientific Crime
Investigation (SCI), an investigative approach that applies scientific methods,
forensic analysis, and systematic evidence handling. SCI requires evidence to
be identified, collected, secured, and analyzed according to procedures that
support its legal accountability.
How Technology
Can Help Reconstruct a Murder Case
The murder case
involving a former Langkat DPRD member is discussed as an example of how
technology can be integrated with conventional investigative methods.
According to the
article, investigators can combine several forms of digital information to
reconstruct movements and establish a chronology of events. These include CCTV
footage, BTS data, GPS-related location analysis, telecommunications
information, and digital forensic examination.
The researchers
describe several functions of these technologies:
·
CCTV footage can help
reconstruct movements and events recorded at particular locations.
·
BTS and telecommunications data
can help examine the location and movement of mobile devices at specific times.
·
Digital forensics can recover
communications, phone calls, documents, photographs, videos, and metadata from
electronic devices.
·
Integrated evidence analysis
can connect digital evidence with physical evidence, witness testimony, and
expert testimony.
Digital forensic
analysis can also provide information about communication patterns,
relationships between individuals, possible motives, and the sequence of
activities before and after a crime.
However, Bahri
and Eddy emphasize an important limitation. From an academic perspective, the
use of specific technologies in the Langkat case should not automatically be
treated as fully established unless their use is explicitly documented in case
files, court decisions, or official investigative documents. The researchers
therefore frame the case as illustrating the relevance of technology-based
investigation while emphasizing the need for documentary and legal
verification.
Indonesian Law
Recognizes Electronic Evidence
One of the
central legal issues examined by Syaiful Bahri and Triono Eddy is the position
of electronic evidence under Indonesian criminal procedure.
Article 184 of
the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) traditionally recognizes five categories of
evidence: witness testimony, expert testimony, letters, clues, and defendant
testimony. The researchers note that the KUHAP does not explicitly establish
digital evidence as a separate category.
The Electronic
Information and Transactions Law, commonly known as the ITE Law, provides an
important legal framework for electronic information and electronic documents.
Under the framework discussed in the article, electronic information,
electronic documents, and their printouts can be recognized as legal evidence
when obtained through proper procedures.
This legal
framework allows evidence such as CCTV recordings, digital messages, communication
histories, location information, call data records, and other electronic
documents to contribute to criminal proceedings.
The researchers
also identify the Indonesian Police Law as another legal foundation for the
professional use of science and technology in police investigations. SCI
further supports the integration of scientific methods, forensic laboratories,
and digital analysis into criminal investigations.
Three
Requirements Determine the Strength of Digital Evidence
Technology alone
does not automatically make evidence legally strong. Bahri and Eddy identify
three essential requirements: legality, authenticity, and integrity.
First, digital
evidence must be acquired through lawful procedures and within the authority of
investigators. Second, its authenticity must be established by showing that the
evidence originates from a reliable source. Third, its integrity must be
protected so that the information is not altered, manipulated, or contaminated
between collection and presentation in court.
This is where
the chain of custody becomes particularly important.
Investigators must maintain a documented process showing how digital evidence
was discovered, collected, secured, examined, and preserved. Even changes to
digital information can affect its evidentiary value.
Privacy is
another important consideration. The collection of communication histories,
CCTV recordings, and location data can involve personal information. The
researchers therefore stress that technology-based investigations must remain
within legitimate authority, respect due process, and avoid unnecessary
interference with individual rights.
Researchers
Combine Legal Analysis With Case Evidence
Bahri and Eddy
use a normative-empirical legal research approach, combining
analysis of written laws with examination of how legal provisions operate in
practice.
The researchers
analyze primary legal materials, including the Criminal Procedure Code, the ITE
Law, the Police Law, and other relevant regulations. They also examine legal
literature, scientific journals, textbooks, expert opinions, previous research,
and other academic materials.
For the case
analysis, the researchers examine court decisions, investigative chronologies,
and information concerning the use of technological evidence. Their analysis
applies conceptual and case approaches and uses descriptive-analytical methods
to connect investigative practices with applicable legal principles.
Technology
Brings Opportunities and Legal Challenges
The researchers
identify several practical challenges in technology-based investigations.
Investigators may face large volumes of digital data, damaged devices,
encryption, deleted information, and attempts to remove digital traces. Digital
forensic examination also requires specialized expertise and appropriate
equipment.
There are also
legal challenges concerning the seizure, acquisition, authentication,
preservation, and examination of electronic evidence. The researchers note that
the KUHAP does not provide detailed technical procedures for confiscating,
copying, securing, and examining digital devices. This can create uncertainty
and leave room for challenges to the legality of evidence.
For this reason,
Bahri and Eddy argue that technological capabilities need to be matched with
clear legal standards. They recommend stronger criminal procedure regulations
governing the status, acquisition, examination, and handling of technological
evidence, together with improved technical capacity among law enforcement
officials and clearer operational standards for maintaining chain of custody.
Why the
Findings Matter
The findings
have implications beyond a single murder investigation. As more information is
generated through mobile phones, surveillance systems, digital communications,
and online transactions, electronic data is becoming increasingly relevant to
criminal investigations.
For law
enforcement, the research highlights the importance of combining scientific
technology with proper evidence-handling procedures. For courts, it underscores
the need to assess not only what digital evidence shows but also how the
evidence was obtained, preserved, and verified. For policymakers, the findings
point to the need for clearer and more harmonized rules governing digital
evidence.
The central
message from Bahri and Eddy is that technology can strengthen the objectivity
and accuracy of criminal investigations, but its evidentiary value depends on
legality, authenticity, integrity, and proper chain-of-custody procedures. In
their analysis, technological evidence should complement rather than operate
independently from other forms of evidence.
About the
Authors
Syaiful
Bahri is the corresponding author of the article and is affiliated
with the Master of Law Program at Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara
(UMSU), Medan.
Triono
Eddy is also affiliated with the Master of Law Program at Universitas
Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara, Medan.
The article does
not specify the authors’ individual academic degrees or more specific fields of
expertise beyond their affiliation with the Master of Law Program.
Source
Article:
“A Juridical Analysis of the Use of Technology in Investigation and Inquiry
Processes Based on Scientific Crime Investigation to Uncover the Murder Case of
a Former Member of the Langkat Regional House of Representatives”
Journal:
Journal of Legal and Cultural Analytics (JLCA)
Publication
Year: 2026
Volume:
5, Issue 1, pp. 57–68
Authors:
Syaiful Bahri and Triono Eddy
Affiliation:
Magister Ilmu Hukum, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara, Medan
DOI:
10.55927/jlca.v5i1.16379
.jpg)
0 Komentar