Investigative and Reporting Practices
Investigative and Reporting Practices tests how a sergeant evaluates reports, guides preliminary and follow-up investigation, and protects case quality. The exam favors practical review: can you tell whether a report is complete, factual, and usable?
Report standards
A sound report identifies the crime and its elements, establishes jurisdiction, names victims and witnesses, describes observations separately from hearsay and inference, records evidence and its disposition, and explains investigative steps and follow-up. Use chronological, specific language. “The suspect was uncooperative” is weak; “the suspect pulled his arm away and refused to place his hands behind his back after two verbal commands” is reviewable. Supervisory approval means more than a signature: check elements, legal basis, evidence booked, supplemental needs, and notifications.
Evidence and case management
Chain of custody must be documented from seizure to booking. Note photographs, video, digital evidence, and medical records. Assign follow-up with deadlines: canvass, video retrieval, interviews, warrants, lab requests. Flag cases needing detective referral, crime analysis, or special-unit notification.
Worked example
A burglary report says entry was gained “through the rear” but never identifies the door, damage, or point of entry. The sergeant returns it for a supplemental: which door, locked or unlocked, damage, tools, fingerprints, first responder, and whether the scene was protected. Reasoning: point of entry supports the burglary element and links evidence to a suspect; without it, the case is hard to charge or clear.
Traps that cost marks
- Signing reports with missing elements.
- Blurring observation, suspicion, and conclusion.
- Failing to document evidence disposition.
- Leaving follow-up unassigned or undated.