Revising a Patrol Narrative for Court
An officer submits this draft narrative for a report that will be reviewed by a prosecutor:
"At approximately 2215 hours, while conducting a security check of the rear lot, the east door was discovered unsecured. The subject was observed by me exiting the alley, and he was carrying a black bag. It should be noted that no signs of forced entry was found. I identified myself and ordered him to stop, and the bag was dropped by him and fled toward Front Street."
The supervisor's markup is due before end of shift. The same facts must be preserved exactly - nothing may be added, removed, or reordered in a way that changes what happened.
1. Identify each defect in the draft - grammatical, logical, and stylistic - and state the correction for each.
Read the worked answer
- Dangling modifier. "While conducting a security check…, the east door was discovered" - the door did not conduct the check. Fix: name the actor. "While I was conducting a security check of the rear lot, I discovered the east door unsecured."
- Agent hidden by passive voice. "The subject was observed by me" buries the officer. Fix: "I observed the subject exiting the alley."
- Subject–verb disagreement. "no signs of forced entry was found" - the subject is signs, so were. Better, delete the whole throat-clearing phrase.
- Empty connective. "It should be noted that" adds nothing and signals filler. Delete it.
- Impossible compound. "the bag was dropped by him and fled" makes the bag the one fleeing. Fix: "He dropped the bag and fled toward Front Street."
- Unnecessary passive. "the bag was dropped by him" - use the active voice; it is shorter and clearer.
No fact is changed by any of these edits; only who-did-what becomes explicit.
2. Rewrite the narrative in three or four sentences. Keep the tense consistent, keep every fact, and make the actors unmistakable.
Read the worked answer
Revision:
"At approximately 2215 hours, I was conducting a security check of the rear lot when I discovered that the east door was unsecured. I found no signs of forced entry. I then observed the subject exit the alley carrying a black bag. I identified myself and ordered him to stop; he dropped the bag and fled toward Front Street."
Why this version holds up:
- Every sentence has a stated actor - I or he - so there is no ambiguity about who did what.
- "I discovered that the east door was unsecured" keeps the passive only where it is genuinely unknown or irrelevant who unsecured the door.
- The semicolon joins two linked actions without implying causation you cannot prove.
- Past tense throughout; no drift.
- Nothing is added: no opinion about the subject's intent, no characterization of his demeanor, no facts not in the draft.
3. Which of these three sentences is strongest for the final clause, and why are the other two faulty? A. "The bag was dropped by him and fled toward Front Street." B. "After dropping the bag, I observed him flee toward Front Street." C. "He dropped the bag and fled toward Front Street."
Read the worked answer
Answer: C.
A fails on logic, not just style: the subject of "fled" is the bag. A reader - or opposing counsel - reads it literally, and the sentence also uses a needless passive.
B contains a dangling modifier. The introductory phrase "After dropping the bag" attaches to the nearest subject, I - meaning the officer dropped the bag. It also separates the observation ("I observed") from the thing observed at the exact moment clarity matters.
C is strongest because:
- The two actions share one actor, so they belong in one compound predicate.
- The verb "dropped" is active and carries no implication about intent.
- It is short enough that the fact cannot get lost in the sentence - which is the whole point of a narrative that will be read aloud in a courtroom.