( (a) ridho rendy saputra (010002200100)(b) analysis of the determination of a suspect in investigation warrant (sprindik) number pol: sprin.sidik/08/ii/2021/ditreskrimum for failing to meet the standard of sufficient preliminary evidence and the complainant\\\'s legal standing(c) 120 pages, 2026, 2 appendices(d) keywords: determination of a suspect, preliminary evidence, complainant\\\'s legal standing, investigation, pretrial hearing (praperadilan).(e) the determination of a suspect is a legal action within the investigation process that must be carried out in accordance with the indonesian criminal procedure code (kuhap) in order to guarantee legal certainty, the protection of human rights, and the principle of due process of law. constitutional court decision number 21/puu-xii/2014 affirms that the determination of a suspect must be based on at least two valid pieces of evidence in accordance with article 184 of the kuhap, and that an investigation must be based on a report from a complainant who possesses clear legal standing, so that the criminal process is not misused as a means of resolving civil disputes. the problem addressed in this research is whether the determination of a suspect based on investigation warrant number pol: sprin.sidik/08/ii/2021/ditreskrimum has met the standard of sufficient preliminary evidence and was preceded by verification of the complainant\\\'s authority as the basis for initiating the investigation. this research employs a normative legal research method that is descriptive-analytical in nature, using secondary data obtained from a literature study of laws and regulations, court decisions, books, and scholarly journals, reinforced by the results of an interview with a criminal law expert, and analyzed qualitatively using the deductive method. the results of the research show that the determination of the suspect in the case in question did not meet the standard of sufficient preliminary evidence, because the interrogation report (berita acara interogasi), case exposition report (laporan gelar perkara), and other administrative documents did not qualify as valid evidence under article 184 of the kuhap. the investigators also failed to conduct adequate verification of the complainant\\\'s legal standing, even though the land object reported had already been the subject of a supreme court decision with permanent legal force (inkracht). thus, the determination of the suspect in the aforementioned investigation warrant is legally invalid.(f) 25 books (1983–2020), 11 journals (2018–2025), 2 laws and regulations, 2 court decisions.(g) ramadhana anindyajati, s.h., m.h. ( )(h) ridho rendy saputra ( )