<![CDATA[This study analyzes the pretrial litigation model for seizures carried out by law enforcement officials prior to the determination of suspects. Prior to Constitutional Court (MK) Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, the scope of pretrial proceedings was limited to arrest, detention, termination of investigation, and termination of prosecution, so that the validity of seizure without a suspect could not be tested through pretrial proceedings. The Constitutional Court's decision expanded the scope of pretrial litigation to examine the validity of seizures, but in practice, there are still inconsistencies in its implementation. This study uses a normative juridical method with a legislative, case, and conceptual approach. The results of the study show that seizure without a suspect has the potential to violate human rights and create legal uncertainty. An effective pretrial lawsuit model needs to include regulatory strengthening, seizure time limits, and strict supervision from judicial institutions to ensure the protection of individual rights. Therefore, this study recommends the development of a clearer and more measurable pretrial lawsuit model to improve transparency and accountability in law enforcement.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
