Avoiding pitfalls in police investigations

Avoiding pitfalls in police investigations

The public's perception of the police is in the spotlight
after incidents occurred which suggest that some officers might
have erred in their duties. Tjetje Tadjudin, a robbery witness,
died in custody at the Bogor police precinct. A controversy
erupted over a suspect in the killing of journalist Fuad Muhammad
Syafrudin (Udin) in Yogyakarta. These are some cases in point.
Koesparmono Irsan, a former deputy of operations with the
Indonesian National Police, explores the issue.

Question: What do you say about the finding of the National
Commission on Human Rights, that the arrest of a suspect in a
journalist's killing in Yogyakarta was a violation of human
rights?

Answer: We have to pay attention to two things. First, the
procedure. Second, the target. To reach the target, a procedure
is needed. A procedural mistake -- for example, arresting a
suspect without an arrest warrant -- is usually easier to
correct. But once you have the wrong target, you have to give
more serious attention to the mistake.

I think what the rights body found out recently is an honest
input for the National Police. They have to take it seriously so
that, in the future, they will be able to avoid similar mistakes
and difficulties.

Actually, I can also say that Udin's and Tjetje's case are
among so many similar cases the police have handled in the past.
I'm very sure about that. So the procedure of arresting and
questioning a suspect must have become a familiar part of their
job. Therefore, it is inexcusable that such a mistake still
occurs.

In this case, I think, it would be better for the local police
chiefs (in Bogor and Yogyakarta) to give honest explanations to
the public about what has actually happened. The National Police,
however, serve the public, not certain individuals. They are
supposed to protect the community, not certain people only.

Q: What is the first thing a police officer should do before
he conducts an investigation?

A: They should have a thorough understanding of the case. Is
it true that the suspect they have arrested is the real killer?
If it is, prove it through empirical evidence, honest evidence.
Not evidence provided by certain persons with particular
interests. If they have the wrong suspect, on the other hand,
they have to be brave enough to admit it. There's no need to be
ashamed.

In fact, in this case, they have repeatedly claimed they are
on the right track. If this is true, we have to give them the
chance to prove what they have in court. Let the court decide who
is wrong, who is right.

Once a case is brought to court, the attorneys should also do
their jobs properly. They have to refer to the facts, not public
opinion. If they have doubts regarding the results of the
police's investigation, they have the right to conduct their own
investigations before filing it with the court. They also have
the right to monitor the police's investigation. But once they
issue a PK-21 letter -- a letter clarifying that a police
investigation is correct and has been completed -- the police's
task is over. It's now up to the attorneys to bring the case to
court.

Q: What about Tjetje's case, in which a suspect died in
custody at a police precinct?

A: That's human error. Such a thing does not only occur in
Indonesia. It happens everywhere, although they are all under
oath to do their jobs properly. But that doesn't mean we should
tolerate such things. We have to make efforts to avoid fatal
errors like that.

Q: It's been said that pressure from senior police officers
often led to such things taking place...

A: Again, it's human error. Why should the senior officers
exert pressure? However, I think it's understandable. They have
to complete their questioning in a limited time. If they fail to
complete the questioning within 20 days, they have to ask the
district attorney for more time. This is not easy, because the
attorney will drop the case if he or she feels uncertain about
it. This means the police lose the chance to prove their thesis
about the case.

Sometimes, they also become discouraged when the suspect
refuses to confess while in the meantime, they have already
obtained evidence that supports their allegation. In this case,
we cannot make a generalization. Each case is different from
others. Similarly, one officer is different from another.

Q: Is a suspect's testimony such an important thing that the
police will do anything to get it?

A: A police investigation is usually based on the preliminary
clues which are supported by evidence. There are five types of
evidence: testimony from witnesses, from experts, documents,
files listing the allegations, and testimony from the suspect(s).

Here, the suspect's testimony is submitted last. That means
that a suspect's testimony is meaningless without other
supporting evidence. And each piece of material evidence itself
must have its own convincing proof. Every police officer must
acknowledge this, as this is clearly mentioned in paragraph 184
of the Criminal Code Procedures.

Q: What is your suggestion to avoid such abuse during a police
interrogation?

A: Once the police find out that all the evidence supports the
allegation, they should present the case right away in front of
the attorneys, the lawyers, and the experts. Anyone connected
with the case is allowed to hear it in an informal hearing. If
the suspect still rejects the allegation, thus ignoring the
supporting evidence, the police can ask for input from other
parties, including the suspect's lawyer.

This (case hearing), can be conducted routinely; once a week,
every two days, or whenever it is needed.

I also suggest that every police interrogation must be
witnessed by the suspect's lawyer. By so doing, the interrogation
officers are prevented from beating the suspect.

Maj. Gen. (ret) Koesparmono Irsan is now a lecturer at the
Police Science College and rector of Bhayangkara Jaya University.