Repairing a Draft Incident Report
The following narrative was submitted by a first-year officer for a rules-violation report.
"At approximately 1415 hours, me and Officer Reyes was conducting a count on B-yard when we observed two inmates whom appeared to be arguing near the weight pile. The inmate on the left, who's name I later learned was Flores, pushed the other inmate. I told them to stop and they didn't, so I radioed it in and we separated them. There was a lot of contraband found afterwards during the search which was conducted by the second watch."
The report will be attached to a disciplinary package and may be read aloud at a hearing.
1. Identify at least five errors of grammar, usage, or word choice in the narrative and give the corrected wording for each.
Read the worked answer
| # | Original | Problem | Correction |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "me and Officer Reyes was" | Pronoun case (object form used as subject) plus subject-verb agreement with a compound subject | "Officer Reyes and I were" |
| 2 | "inmates whom appeared" | "Whom" is object case; here it is the subject of "appeared" | "inmates who appeared" |
| 3 | "who's name" | "Who's" = "who is"; the possessive is "whose" | "whose name" |
| 4 | "I told them to stop and they didn't" | Contraction and vague reference; "they didn't" is informal and imprecise about who did what | "I directed both inmates to stop; neither complied" |
| 5 | "a lot of contraband" | Indefinite quantity and informal register; unusable in a hearing | A specific count and description of each item |
| 6 | "The inmate on the left" | Ambiguous identifier - no name, number, or description | Identify by name and CDCR number, then by position |
Reasoning note: errors 1–3 are mechanical and easily fixed. Errors 4–6 are usage and precision problems that matter more, because a hearing reader cannot tell what was actually observed.
2. Rewrite the final sentence so that it is specific, factual, and usable at a hearing. Then state why the original version is a liability.
Read the worked answer
Rewrite (model): "At 1505 hours, second-watch staff searched cells 4B-108 through 4B-114. Staff recovered one cell phone, two charging cables, and one 6-inch metal rod from cell 4B-111. All items were photographed, logged under property number 22-4471, and released to the watch commander."
Why the original is a liability:
- "A lot of" is an opinion, not an observation. It tells a hearing reader nothing that can be verified, contested, or matched to a property log.
- No count and no description means the report cannot be reconciled with the evidence log.
- "Afterwards" is unanchored in time - after the push? after the count? after the search began?
- "Which was conducted by the second watch" invites the question of who on second watch, when, and whether the reporting officer was even present. If the officer was not present, the sentence should attribute the information to its source rather than implying first-hand knowledge.
Rule to apply: if you did not see it, say who did; if you saw it, say exactly what, where, when, and how many.
3. The officer argues that "appeared to be arguing" should be struck as vague too. Is that argument correct? Explain the distinction between that phrase and the phrases "they didn't" and "a lot of contraband."
Read the worked answer
The argument is not correct - "appeared to be arguing" should stay.
The three phrases fail for different reasons:
- "Appeared to be arguing" is a properly qualified observation. The officer is reporting what he could see and hear (raised voices, gestures, proximity) while acknowledging he could not know the content or intent. That qualification is honest and is exactly what a report should do.
- "They didn't" is imprecise about conduct. It does not say what either inmate actually did after the order - kept talking, walked away, turned toward the officer. It compresses two people's separate actions into one vague negative.
- "A lot of contraband" is an unquantified opinion. Contraband is countable and describable; the report should say how many and what kind.
Test to apply: a qualification is acceptable when it accurately marks the limit of what the officer perceived. It is not acceptable when it substitutes for a fact the officer could have recorded. "Appeared" limits knowledge; "a lot" and "didn't" hide it.