The Missing Evidence Bag
During a shift handover, an officer notices that an evidence bag logged as containing a mobile phone is not in the secure locker. The log shows the bag was signed out at 14:10 by Officer Grant and returned at 14:55, but the signature on return is unclear. Three officers had access to the locker that afternoon: Grant, Peters, and Charles. Peters was on patrol from 14:00 to 16:00. Charles was at the front desk, which is in direct line of sight of the locker, from 14:30 onward. Grant was on a break from 14:45 to 15:15. The locker key is kept in the sergeant's drawer, which was unlocked between 14:00 and 15:00.
1. Using only the stated facts, assess which officers could and could not have removed the bag, and identify what remains unknown.
Read the worked answer
Facts and inferences:
- Grant signed the bag out at 14:10 and the return signature at 14:55 is unclear. Grant was on break 14:45–15:15, so Grant was free at 14:55 but also had a documented reason to be handling the bag earlier.
- Peters was on patrol 14:00–16:00, so Peters was not at the locker during the key window unless the patrol record is wrong. Peters is the weakest candidate on current facts.
- Charles was at the front desk from 14:30 with direct sight of the locker, which cuts both ways: Charles could observe the locker, but is also highly visible and would be seen leaving the desk.
What remains unknown: who actually signed the return line; whether the bag was ever returned or only the log entry was made; whether the key left the drawer; and whether the patrol record for Peters is accurate. The honest conclusion is that the facts narrow suspicion but do not establish who removed the bag. Any report must say so rather than name a culprit.
2. State the next three investigative steps you would recommend, in priority order, and why each matters.
Read the worked answer
Secure and examine the log and the key drawer. Compare the return signature against known signatures and check for fingerprints on the log and drawer. This tests whether the record itself is reliable - if the return entry is false, the timeline changes entirely.
Verify the patrol and break records independently (radio logs, vehicle tracking, desk roster). This confirms or eliminates Peters and fixes Grant's and Charles's actual positions, replacing assumption with evidence.
Interview the three officers separately, starting with open questions about routine, before confronting anyone with the discrepancy. Separate accounts reveal inconsistencies that a joint conversation would hide.
Priority reasoning: evidence preservation comes first because logs and surfaces degrade; corroborating records come next because they are objective; interviews come last so that questions can be informed by the records rather than guesswork. Naming a suspect before these steps would be premature and could undermine a later case.