EmailPrintTalk BackRegisterBookmarkRSSWhat's This

The Street Survival Newsline with Calibre Press

Coffee, collegiate, or clear: which is best for a report?

By John Bowden

 

 

 

 

“The stupid dirt bag got all up in my face when I told him he was under arrest. I grabbed the asshole and he bowed up on me. He started acting like a maniac. So, I took his feet out from under him and slam dunked his ass to the pavement. When I wrenched his arms around and cuffed him; he quit kicking and lay as still as a road kill opossum.”

This is a very colorful description of an arrest; one you may have heard in the coffee locker after work or one you yourself have told on occasion. It makes for good entertainment and evokes the imagination when it's heard. I think we can all agree that this rendition of an arrest does not go on a police report. It is vague, ambiguous and wide open for interpretation.

The same event could be described in an official, collegiate version as follows:

“The reporting officer proceeded to effectuate an arrest to incarcerate the listed perpetrator. The listed perpetrator became verbally abusive towards this officer, verbally enunciating negative expletives, denouncing the countenance of this officer's chosen profession. As the arresting officer proceeded to physically manipulate the perpetrator into a position conducive for the application of the arresting officer's issued, Smith & Wesson handcuffs, the perpetrator became physically resistive to the arresting officer's cuffing procedure. The arresting officer clearly and loudly articulated directions for the uncooperative perpetrator to comply. The arresting officer advised the perpetrator of the negative consequences that will be brought about by resistance on the part of the perpetrator. The arresting officer was forced to resort to a take down maneuver, effectuated against the perpetrator. The perpetrator was subsequently placed in a horizontal position and subjected to a cuffing procedure, to restrain him, for the purpose of arrest and incarceration.”

Now, this official version of an arrest is at least 3 times longer than the coffee locker version. It is vague, ambiguous and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. It is also hard to understand.

What happened? Often times we are trying to impress people with our “creative” writing skill, instead of telling them what happened. In the process, we fail to actually say what happened. When you write a report, there should be no room for interpretation. The reader of your report should have a crystal clear picture in their mind of what happened when they finish reading your report. If the reader has questions about what happened, you have failed to effectively communicate.

Here is a clear version of the same report.

I told Smith he was under arrest. He said, “Screw you pig! You ain't taken me no place!” I used my left hand to grab his left elbow and my right hand to grab his right wrist. Smith flexed his body and pulled away from me. I yelled “don't resist” and “get down” several times. Smith did not comply and continued to try and pull away. I struck Smith on the common peroneal of his right leg with my right knee. I used my left leg to sweep his feet. I guided Smith to the ground, as I repeatedly yelled “get down, don't resist.” When he was on the ground, I pulled Smith over on his stomach and handcuffed his arms behind his back. Smith was not injured.

This version is half the length of the “official, collegiate” version and about twice as long as the coffee locker version. It is clear, unambiguous and leaves little room for misinterpretation. When a person finishes reading it, there should not be any questions about what happened.

What do we want in a use of force report and how do we make it clear? This is the information that is needed in the report:

1. We want to know all of the suspect's actions and words. We don't want a watered down version or a hazy memory later on.

2. We want to clearly articulate what the officer did. What part of the body was hit with what blow on the part of the officer or which weapon was used.

3. We want to know everything that was said by the officer.

4. We want to know specifically what techniques were used by the officer.

5. We want to know if there were any injuries to the perpetrator or the officer and how serious they are.

How do we make it clear? That issue would take more room than is available here and will be discussed at length in future articles. However, I have here some pointers that will help.

1. Use the first person. “I” is clearer and easier to use than “the below listed officer,” “The undersigned,” or “The arresting officer.” It is also how we normally talk, making it easier to understand.

2. Use the names of others in your report instead of “victim 1,2,3...,” “witness 1,2,3...,” or “perpetrator, arrestee, subject, etc.” We are accustomed to using the names of people in every day conversation. It also helps the reader to learn who did what.

3. Use simple straight forward sentences. The rule is, the more complex the sentences, the more difficult it will be for the average reader to understand.

4. Use simple words. They are easier to understand and usually clearer than complex words.

5. Use quotes. If you quote exactly what is said, there will be no room for misinterpretation. Example: Johnson said “I'm going to kill you” instead of “Johnson threatened his life.” This way, the reader won't have to ask how “his life” was threatened.

6. State exactly what happened. “I hit the arrestee on the brachial plexus origin with my right forearm.” As opposed to: “I struck the arrestee with an approved blow.”

7. Review your report. Have someone else read your report. If they have to ask you to clarify what you wrote or ask questions about what happened, your report is not clear.

These are just a few pointers to get you started on writing a better report. 

We must realize the most shocking and intrusive thing a police officer can do is to take away a person's freedom, while using force in the process. We must make sure, when we have finished the report that there is no doubt about what occurred and why we did it. Remember, we may live by the sword, but we are judged by the pen. Make sure you write it right.

________________________________________________________________________

John Bowden is the founder and director of Applied Police Training and Certification (APTAC). John retired from the Orlando Police Department as a Master Police Officer In 1994. His career spans a period of 21 years in law enforcement overlapping 25 years of law enforcement instruction. His total of more than 37 years of experience includes all aspects of law enforcement to include: uniform crime scene technician, patrol operations, investigations, undercover operations, planning and research for departmental development, academy coordinator, field training officer, and field training supervisor.

As the director of APTAC, John is responsible for coordinating operations and conducting training for law enforcement organizations across the United States. APTAC clients include law enforcement agencies, state police academies, sheriff departments, correctional institutions, military law enforcement, as well as colleges and universities across the United States. John has written numerous books, including Report Writing for Law Enforcement & Corrections, Management Techniques For Criminal Justice, Today's Field Training Officer, and others.

Contact John Bowden via email by clicking here or visit the APTAC website.

EmailPrintTalk BackRegisterBookmarkRSSWhat's This