Japan Police Exam common mistakes
Japan Police Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In 憲法 questions, memorising the bare text of Articles 11–13, 19, 21, 29, 31 but never learning the leading Supreme Court tests (e.g., the 税関検査 case, 猿払事件, よど号ハイジャック新聞記事抹消事件, 薬事法違反 distances), so answer choices that quote the article verbatim are marked correct even when they misstate the doctrinal standard.
Candidates treat the constitution section as a recitation exam because the text is short and appears in every prep book summary; they never drill the 判例 because the case names look intimidating and the facts feel remote from policing.
What to do instead
Build a one-page 判例 matrix: case name, year, statutory provision, the specific test stated (e.g., 明白かつ現在の危険, 厳格な合理性の基準, 二重の基準), and the disposition. For each of the 20 highest-yield cases, write one sentence in your own words stating the rule, then practise rejecting answer choices that state a plausible but different standard. Test yourself by covering the rule column and reconstructing it.
In 警察官職務執行法 questions, conflating 職務質問 (Article 2) with 保護 (Article 3) and 避難等の措置 (Article 4), and answering as though 職務質問 requires a 令状 or as though refusal to answer is itself a crime.
The statute is short and its articles are numbered consecutively, so candidates skim it once and rely on general intuition about 'police can't stop you without cause', which is a foreign legal intuition, not Japanese law.
What to do instead
Make a four-column table for Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5: trigger condition, what the officer may do, what the officer may NOT do, and the 罰則 article (Article 2(2) 罰則 is 警察官職務執行法違反 only for 立ち入り refusal under 第2条第2項? - verify each penalty article against the current text). Memorise that 職務質問 is not a 処分 requiring 令状, that 所持品検査 has its own 判例 limits, and drill the 大阪高裁 2007-type fact patterns where the stop escalated.
In 刑法, answering 正当防衛/緊急避難 questions by feel - choosing 正当防衛 whenever the victim fought back - without checking 急迫不正の侵害, 防衛の意思, and 相当性 (especially 自招侵害 and 過剰防衛 reductions under Article 36(2)).
These concepts overlap in everyday language ('self-defence'), and candidates rely on moral symmetry ('he started it') instead of the statutory elements; 自招侵害 and 誤想防衛 are rarely taught in university civics.
What to do instead
For each fact pattern, write the four elements as a checklist and force a yes/no on 急迫性, 不正性, 防衛の意思, and 相当性 before looking at the choices. Separately memorise the 判例 rules for 自招侵害 ( Kyoto 地裁 2008-type: 侵害を招いた者に 防衛の意思 が認められるか), 誤想防衛 (故意阻却 vs 過失), and 過剰防衛 (刑の任意的減免). Practise 10 patterns where the answer is 過剰防衛 rather than 正当防衛.
In 刑事訴訟法, confusing the 令状 requirements for 逮捕 (通常逮捕・緊急逮捕・現行犯逮捕) with those for 捜索・差押え, and forgetting that 逮捕後の捜索差押え needs its own 令状 (or falls under 第220条) and that 令状提示 is required under 第222条/第110条.
The Code cross-references itself heavily (第220条, 第222条, 第110条), so candidates memorise isolated articles without the chain; exam questions exploit exactly that gap.
What to do instead
Draw a flowchart from 捜査開始 to 起訴: for each compulsory measure, note who issues the 令状 (裁判官), what the 令状 must state, whether 緊急執行 applies, and which article authorises it. Then do 20 正誤 questions where the only error is a missing 令状 or a wrong issuer. Also memorise 別件逮捕・取調べ limits and 通信傍受法 basics.
In 民法, treating 時効 and 除斥期間 as interchangeable, and applying the old 10-year/20-year 消滅時効 without the 2020 改正 (5 years for 主観的起算点, 10 years for 客観的起算点, 20 years for 人身損害), or misapplying 取得時効 requirements (占有開始時の善意無過失 for 10-year short period).
Many prep materials predate the 2020 改正 and candidates learn the pre-reform numbers; the reform also changed 中断 to 更新, which shifts vocabulary in the answer choices.
What to do instead
Write a single card with the post-2020 消滅時効 periods and the 起算点 for each, plus 除斥期間 examples (e.g., 取消権 5 years). Do the same for 取得時効 (10年/20年, 善意無過失, 占有の性質). Then solve 15 questions where the trap is a pre-reform number, and note the year of the reform next to each rule you memorise.
In 一般知識・時事, memorising a static list of 'recent news' from a six-month-old summary instead of tracking the current 警察白書 themes, 公安委員会 structure, and the year's legislative changes (e.g., 刑法改正, 道路交通法改正, デジタル関連法).
The 時事 section rewards recency, but candidates buy one book and stop reading; they also assume 一般知識 is unpractisable trivia rather than a bounded set of institutions and laws.
What to do instead
Set a weekly 30-minute routine: read the 警察庁 and 内閣府 白書 summaries, note any new law that took effect this year, and add it to a running one-page list with the effective date. For 一般知識, drill the fixed institutional facts (国会, 内閣, 裁判所, 地方自治, 選挙制度) as a separate deck, because these repeat every year and are fully learnable.
In 国語 (現代文), reading the passage once and choosing the answer that matches a phrase from the text rather than the one that matches the author's overall claim, and running out of time on 長文 because each question is read from scratch.
The distractors are deliberately built from verbatim phrases, and candidates under time pressure pattern-match words instead of tracking argument structure; they also never practise under a clock.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed procedure: read the question stems first, then the passage once while marking 接続詞 (しかし, したがって), 指示語 referents, and the concluding sentence of each paragraph. Eliminate choices that are true but not the author's point, and choices that overstate (必ず, すべて). Do timed sets of one 長文 in 12 minutes and review only the questions you got wrong, writing why the trap choice was attractive.
In 数的処理, spending 4–5 minutes on one 判断推理 puzzle, leaving no time for 資料解釈, and skipping 空間把握 entirely because it feels unfamiliar.
These questions are designed so that a brute-force solver will run out of time; candidates also lack a repertoire of standard techniques (線分図, 表, ベン図, 場合分け) and therefore default to trial and error.
What to do instead
Learn one canonical method per question type and drill it in isolation: 表 for 対応関係, ベン図 for 集合, 線分図 for 速さ, 場合分け for 条件整理. Set a hard 3-minute cap per question in practice; if exceeded, mark and move on. Reserve the last 10 minutes for 資料解釈, which is usually the fastest scoring block, and do 15 minutes of 空間把握 daily until cube and net problems are routine.
In 文章理解・小論文, writing a summary of the topic with no explicit position, or burying the thesis in the last paragraph, and exceeding the word limit so the conclusion is cut off.
Candidates transfer the high-school essay habit of 'introduction, background, conclusion' to a format that is scored on structure and argument, and they draft without an outline, so length drifts.
What to do instead
Use a fixed three-part skeleton: state your position in the first two sentences, give two reasons each with a concrete example or data point, then restate the position with a condition or counterargument acknowledged. Outline in bullet points for 3 minutes before writing, count characters per paragraph (e.g., 200/400/200), and finish with 2 minutes to check that the first and last sentences agree. Practise on past 小論文 themes under a 50-minute clock.
In 体力検査・適性検査, training only 持久走 and neglecting 腕立て伏せ・上体起こし・反復横跳び, and treating the 適性検査 personality section as a test to 'win' by choosing the most virtuous answer, producing an inconsistent profile.
Candidates assume fitness tests reward endurance alone, and they misunderstand the 適性検査 as a moral quiz rather than a consistency check; the result is either injury on test day or a flagged response pattern.
What to do instead
Follow the actual 体力検査 event list and train each event twice weekly with measurable targets (reps in 30 seconds, 反復横跳び count), tapering for a week before the test. For 適性検査, answer quickly and honestly rather than selecting the 'ideal' option, and take two full mock tests to check that your profile is stable; inconsistent answers across repeated items are what the test detects.