Michael Floyd is the wide receiver for the Arizona Cardinals. On December 12 he was arrested for DUI after a highway patrol officer found him passed out behind the steering wheel of his SUV. You can read the story here, and you can read the police report here.
Today’s post is especially directed to supervisors who set agency standards for reports. I want to raise some important questions about efficiency.
Law enforcement officers are busy men and women who play a vital role in protecting public safety. How do you determine what information belongs in a report? Do you insist on documenting everything, just in case there are questions later? Or do you encourage officers to focus on the essential facts in their reports?
My own take on this is that police officers should be as efficient as possible, with only the necessary facts.
The question, of course, is which facts are necessary.
Here are the opening paragraphs of the Michael Floyd report. Which information could have been omitted? Opinions will vary, of course – but this is a useful discussion that can have major impact on how officers in your agency spend their time. I’ve made some observations of my own below.
My questions:
- What is the difference between “I was in uniform” and “I was in full SPD regulation uniform”?
- Is the information about the patrol vehicle and uniform even relevant?
- Does the report need to document details about what the officer’s car was doing ?
- Is it appropriate for a report to record the officer’s thinking? (“I thought that the vehicle was not moving due to the c/b traffic….”)
I would encourage officers to record only the relevant information:
On 12/12/16 at approximately 0248 hours, I was driving toward the intersection of E. Camelback Road and N. Goldwater Bl. I saw a black Cadillac Escalade (tag XXXXX) stopped as the lead vehicle in the left turn lane. The car did not move when the traffic signal turned green. The car remained stopped as the traffic signal went through another cycle. I parked my vehicle and walked to the driver’s side of the Escalade.
Original version: 384 words. Revised version: 71 words.
Ms. Reynolds-
As a Law Enforcement manager with 20 years of experience, including working as a patrol officer, a detective, a patrol supervisor, covering administrative assignments and now working in management and as a report writing instructor at a law enforcement academy, I appreciate the effort you are making to help officers with their report writing. However, it is disappointing to see so many posts encouraging them to shortcut report writing. Having been cross-examined by numerous defense attorneys, having worked hundreds of cases as a detective ranging from burglaries and thefts to homicides, having reviewed literally thousands of reports as a patrol supervisor, the problems with short-cutting report writing are obvious.
A police report is an official legal record. In many cases, it may be the ONLY legal record. Leaving out details such as specifying the uniform that the officer was wearing, could eliminate the officer’s obvious, immediately recognizable law enforcement authority to take lawful action. If an officer leaves out critical details, he or she will be torn apart on the witness stand, discredited by defense attorneys, not trusted by prosecutors, and generally look lazy and incompetent.
Most law enforcement agencies have ride-along programs. I strongly encourage you to spend time in some professional law enforcement organizations. Ride along with patrol officers, of course. Then spend time with detectives, supervisors and managers and see what happens beyond the patrol officers who are obviously always pressed for time. Talk to detectives about what happens when they have to pick up a case that had no relevant initial investigation conducted or documented in a report. Talk to supervisors and managers about handling situations where officers acted lawfully and competently but did not document their actions. And then, most importantly, talk to prosecutors and defense attorneys about what they look for in reports. Find out what prosecutors need to obtain convictions. Find out what defense attorneys look for to discredit officers or judge their work product, and what types of omitted information they use to their advantage to discredit officers and get acquittals and ridiculous plea bargains.
I believe that after doing some research, you will significantly change your approach to your recommendations regarding writing professional police reports.
Well said – and thanks!
Many agencies do not think it’s necessary to describe the uniform and vehicle. In my posts I try to remind officers that practices vary from agency to agency, and I certainly don’t want to be the person who says there’s one right way to write a report. I probably need to include that reminder more often.
One concern I have is that officers sometimes imitate reports written by other officers…and soon there’s a lot of information that wouldn’t be useful even in a difficult court case. (“While I was driving, I was observing the traffic.” – How could anyone drive safely WITHOUT observing traffic?) But one officer writes it, and soon a dozen are doing the same thing.
I do appreciate your comment about reports that leave out relevant details. From where I sit, the big omission (and it’s present in more than half of the reports I see) is omitting WHO did WHAT. “The prisoner was transported.” Who drove the van? “The suspect was patted down.” Who searched her? If I could have one wish, it would be to get rid of passive voice.
I think you and I are very similar in our thinking. Thanks for writing!