The Report That Must Survive Cross-Examination
You arrest a man for DUI after a stop at 0200. At the station, the breath test result is 0.14. The man was polite, cooperative, and steady on his feet during the stop; he admitted to 'a couple of beers' about an hour before driving. He refused field sobriety tests, saying 'I know my rights.' A defense attorney later argues the stop was unlawful because you said you stopped him for a 'lane violation' but the video shows only a brief drift. Your draft report currently says: 'I observed the vehicle swerve and stopped it. Subject was obviously intoxicated and admitted drinking. He refused tests. He was arrested for DUI.'
1. Identify the weaknesses in the draft report and rewrite the key observations with specificity.
Read the worked answer
Weaknesses:
- Conclusory language ('obviously intoxicated,' 'swerve') - not articulable.
- No specific facts supporting the stop.
- No timeline, no observations of impairment, no exact statements.
- No documentation of the refusal procedure and advisements.
- No mention of the video discrepancy or how you reconcile it.
Rewrite (example):
- 'At approximately 0200, I observed the vehicle drift approximately 2 feet across the fog line into the adjacent lane for about 3 seconds before returning, on a straight, dry road with light traffic. Based on that observation I initiated a stop.'
- 'The driver's speech was slow and deliberate; I detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle; his eyes were bloodshot and watery. He stated, "I had a couple of beers about an hour ago."'
- 'He declined field sobriety tests after being advised; I documented his refusal and the advisement given.'
- 'Breath test result 0.14 at [time].'
Specificity is what survives cross-examination.
2. The defense argues the stop was unlawful. How does your report address that, and what should you have done at the scene?
Read the worked answer
Report:
- State the specific, articulable facts that justified the stop, including the duration and distance of the drift, road and weather conditions, and any other observations.
- If the video shows a shorter drift than you described, do not overstate. Describe what you actually saw and, if the video is inconsistent, address it honestly.
- The legal question is whether the totality of facts gave reasonable suspicion, not whether the drift was dramatic.
At the scene you should have:
- Noted the exact location, time, and conditions.
- Recorded your observations contemporaneously.
- Preserved the video and any dash-cam/BWC footage.
Honesty about the video is stronger than a polished overstatement that gets impeached.
3. How do you document the refusal of field sobriety tests and the breath test result to withstand challenge?
Read the worked answer
Documentation:
- Advisements: state exactly what you told him and when (e.g., implied consent advisement, right to refuse FSTs).
- Refusal: quote his words ('I know my rights'), note the time, and note that no FSTs were administered.
- Breath test: note the instrument, time, result, and that proper procedure was followed (observation period, operator certification if applicable).
- Chain of custody for any samples.
- Timeline: stop time, contact time, arrest time, test time.
Avoid: 'he refused' with no context; always tie the refusal to the advisement so the record shows it was informed.