Report of a Use-of-Force Incident
You are a correctional officer writing the incident report for a use of force that occurred at 6:18 p.m. in the chow hall. During a dispute over a food tray, Inmate R. Salas swung at another inmate. Officer Doyle and Officer Finch responded. Doyle applied a control hold and took Salas to the floor; Finch assisted with restraints. Salas sustained a small abrasion above the left eye and was seen by medical at 6:41 p.m. and cleared. A camera covers the chow hall but the angle is partially blocked by a serving station. You did not witness the initial swing; you arrived as Salas was being restrained. Your draft currently reads: "Inmate Salas became combative and force was used to gain compliance. Inmate was injured but is fine. Officers acted appropriately."
1. Identify the specific defects in the draft and rewrite the core narrative in 120-180 words.
Read the worked answer
Defects:
- "Became combative" is a conclusion, not an observation; it does not say what Salas did.
- "Force was used" omits who used what force, in what sequence, and for how long.
- "Injured but is fine" is vague and substitutes your judgment for the medical finding.
- "Officers acted appropriately" is an opinion outside your role and, standing alone, reads as advocacy.
- The draft does not disclose that you did not see the initial swing, which is the most important limitation on your account.
Rewritten narrative (about 150 words):
"At approximately 6:18 p.m. I was positioned at the east entrance of the chow hall when I heard raised voices from the tray return area. I turned and saw Inmate Salas with his right arm raised toward another inmate. I did not see contact and cannot state whether a strike landed. Officer Doyle reached Salas and applied a control hold to his right arm; Salas went to the floor. Officer Finch secured Salas's legs and applied restraints. From my position the restraint sequence lasted roughly fifteen seconds. I observed a small abrasion above Salas's left eye. Salas was escorted to medical at 6:41 p.m., examined, and cleared for return to the unit. The chow hall camera partially covers the tray return area but the serving station blocks the angle. I did not witness the events before I turned."
2. The camera footage later shows Salas did not swing first; the other inmate did. How should the report be handled, and what is the reporting principle at stake?
Read the worked answer
The report should be corrected through a documented supplemental report, not by silently rewriting the original.
Handling:
- Leave the original report intact in the file. Submit a supplemental that states what the footage shows, when it was reviewed, and by whom.
- Correct the specific sentence that implied Salas initiated the encounter, and state plainly that the earlier account was based on a partial view.
- Note that the force response itself may still have been reasonable given what the officers perceived at the time; the correction is about the sequence of events, not an automatic finding of misconduct.
- Route the supplemental to the same reviewers who received the original so the record is not split.
Principle: a report is a record of what the officer observed and did, and its integrity depends on being correctable without being concealed. Editing the original to match the footage would erase the fact that the first account was wrong, which is exactly the information reviewers and any later proceeding need. Candor about the limits of one's own observation, stated up front, is what makes the rest of the report credible.