The Napkin and the 72-Hour Camera

Failure 1 - the napkin. A note is a record. It must be dated, timed, signed and kept, not transcribed and thrown away. The napkin is the original; the typed report is the copy. If the two ever differ, a court will want the napkin.

Failure 2 - memory, not notes. The report was written almost two hours later from recollection. Notes should be made at the time, and the report written as soon as practicable from the notes, so the report can be tested against them.

Failure 3 - no time discipline. A 24-hour clock, synchronised to a known source (the CCTV timestamp or the radio log), removes exactly the kind of 8-minute dispute that now exists.

Failure 4 - letting the discrepancy sit. Your partner's report and yours conflict on both the time and the first contact. That must not be resolved by editing either document or by agreeing on a story. It is resolved by checking independent sources (video, radio log, the 911 call time) and then writing a supplementary report that states the conflict, its source, and what the independent evidence shows.

Failure 5 - nothing triggered preservation. Somebody should have requested a litigation/evidence hold on the video within hours, not weeks.

Rewrite:

"At 18:12 I was at the north end of the food court when I heard raised voices. I saw two males standing about one metre apart, facing each other. The male in the grey jacket had both fists clenched at his sides, and I heard him say, 'Say it again.' I closed to about two metres and said, 'Security - step back, both of you.' The male in the grey jacket stepped forward and pushed the other male in the chest with both hands. I took hold of his left upper arm and said, 'You are being detained, let's talk over here.' He pulled his arm back and I guided him by the arm toward the office. At no point did I strike him or take him to the ground."

Why each change:

• "Obviously drunk" is a conclusion. A report should record the observations that led to it - odour, slurred speech, unsteadiness, bloodshot eyes - which can be tested; a conclusion cannot.
• "Looking for trouble" is a state-of-mind guess. You cannot know it and it makes you look partisan.
• "Grabbed him" is vague. Force is the most scrutinised thing you did; it must be described precisely - which hand, which body part, how much pressure.
• "Took him down" invites a use-of-force allegation you have not addressed. If a takedown happened, describe the justification and the mechanics in detail. If it did not, say so expressly.
• Quotes, times and distances let a reader reconstruct the event and let investigators check it against the video.

Obligations

• Preserve, do not tidy. The napkin, the typed report, your partner's report, your notebook, the radio log and the video must all be secured. Destroying or rewriting any of them after a request has arrived is the single worst outcome available to you.
• Urgency on the video. The 72-hour overwrite has almost certainly already run its course three weeks later, which is itself a finding. If any backup, cloud copy or export exists, find it now and document who holds it.
• Route the request upward. Production of company records is a decision for your employer and its legal counsel, not for a guard at a desk. Your job is to identify what exists and where it is.
• Expect a subpoena. You may have to testify, and you may be cross-examined on the 18:12 versus 18:20 conflict. You are entitled to refresh your memory from your notes; you are not entitled to edit them.

Self-inflicted damage to avoid

• Rewriting the report "so it matches" your partner's.
• Making a fresh, cleaner copy and discarding the original.
• Discussing the evidence with your partner before testifying in order to align accounts.
• Telling the lawyer's office anything about the file without your employer's direction.