The Break-In Report That Overstates the Evidence
At 02:10, Officer Grant sees a gray four-door sedan with two occupants parked in the north lot of a strip mall, engine running, no permit visible. The lot is posted 'No Parking-Fire Lane' and the sedan is in it. He notes nothing else and continues his round. At 02:22 he hears glass break near the jewelry store, about 80 feet away. He sees a person in a dark hoodie run from the storefront toward the north lot and throw a long metal object into a storm drain. Grant radios police, follows at a distance, and sees the person get into the gray sedan, which leaves eastbound. Grant cannot read the plate. He returns to the drain but cannot see the object. At 04:00 he writes: 'At about 2 a.m. I saw a suspicious vehicle. Later someone broke the jewelry store window. I saw him break it and run. I called police. The car got away. Nothing else to report.'
1. Identify the deficiencies in the report, distinguishing observation from inference.
Read the worked answer
The report is too vague to support investigation and it overstates what Grant actually saw.
Deficiencies:
- 'About 2 a.m.' hides two distinct, important times: 02:10 and 02:22. Times should be exact where known.
- 'Suspicious vehicle' is a conclusion. The report never describes the sedan, its occupants, the partial plate, or its direction of travel.
- The report does not describe the person: height, build, clothing, hood, direction of flight, or what was in his hands.
- It omits the storm drain and the metal object entirely.
- It omits the camera and any witnesses.
- 'Nothing else to report' is false on its face because the drain object is evidence.
Observation versus inference: Grant heard glass break and then saw a person running from the storefront. He did not see the person break the window. Writing 'I saw him break it' turns an inference into a false observation. The correct statement is that he heard glass break and then observed the person running from the area. That distinction matters for probable cause and for court testimony.
2. Rewrite the factual core as a clear narrative with times and descriptions.
Read the worked answer
A defensible narrative would read:
'At 0210 hours I observed a gray four-door sedan parked in the north lot, in a posted fire lane, with its engine running and two occupants inside. I could not see a permit and did not obtain a plate. I continued my patrol.
At 0222 hours, while approximately 80 feet from the jewelry store, I heard the sound of breaking glass. I looked toward the store and observed a person wearing a dark hoodie running from the storefront toward the north lot. I did not see the person break the window. The person was carrying or throwing a long metal object, which he threw into a storm drain near the north lot. I radioed police and followed at a distance.
I saw the person enter the gray sedan. The sedan left eastbound. I could not read the license plate. I returned to the drain but could not see the object from ground level. I did not enter the drain. I request that the video system be preserved for the period 0200–0300 hours.'
The rewrite keeps observations in chronological order, states what was not seen, and avoids conclusions such as 'suspicious.'
3. What should Grant do about the object in the storm drain and the video, and why?
Read the worked answer
Grant should treat the storm drain as a crime scene and not try to fish the object out himself. Removing it could destroy fingerprints or DNA, alter its position, or create a safety hazard. He should note the exact drain location, mark or guard the area if it can be done safely, and ask police to recover the object. If anyone does recover it, he should record who took it, the time, and where it was stored-basic chain-of-custody information.
He should also identify the camera or cameras that may have captured the north lot, the storefront, and the sedan's departure, and request in writing that the recordings be preserved before they overwrite. He should note the camera locations and the time range requested.
Finally, he should update his report with the drain location, the preservation request, and any police follow-up. The goal is to preserve evidence, not to solve the case alone. A complete report lets investigators connect the vehicle, the person, the object, and the video.