Writing the Facts Section of a Use-of-Force Report
An officer must write the facts section of a report after a use-of-force incident. The key facts: at 22:40 the officer responded to a disturbance; the subject was holding a broken bottle; the officer gave three verbal commands to drop it; the subject advanced two steps; the officer deployed a taser once; the subject fell and was handcuffed; EMS evaluated the subject and cleared him. The officer's body camera was not recording (battery died at 22:35). The supervisor needs the report to be defensible and to flag the missing video. The officer is tempted to write "the subject was aggressive and I had no choice" as the opening line.
1. Rewrite the opening of the facts section so it is objective, chronological, and defensible. Explain what you changed and why.
Read the worked answer
Weak original: "The subject was aggressive and I had no choice." - This is conclusory, subjective ("aggressive"), and self-justifying ("no choice"). It states a conclusion the reader is supposed to accept rather than facts they can evaluate.
Defensible rewrite: "At approximately 22:40 on [date], I responded to a reported disturbance at [location]. On arrival I observed a male subject holding a broken bottle. I gave three verbal commands to drop the bottle. The subject did not comply and advanced two steps toward me. I deployed my taser once. The subject fell, and I handcuffed him. EMS evaluated the subject on scene and cleared him."
What changed:
- Replaced the conclusion ("aggressive") with observable facts (broken bottle, three commands, two steps).
- Removed "I had no choice" - the reader can judge necessity from the facts.
- Made it strictly chronological with times and counts.
- Kept it neutral in tone.
2. How should the officer document the dead body camera, and why does placement matter?
Read the worked answer
Document it explicitly and early, not buried at the end. Suggested line, placed near the start of the facts or in a dedicated equipment note: "My body-worn camera was not recording during this incident; its battery was depleted at approximately 22:35, before my arrival at 22:40."
Why placement matters:
- A supervisor, prosecutor, or defense reviewer will look for video. If its absence is discovered rather than disclosed, it looks like concealment. Disclosing it up front is what makes the report defensible.
- Stating the exact time (22:35) and that it preceded arrival (22:40) establishes that no footage of the encounter ever existed - it was not deleted or withheld.
- Pair it with a note on whether any other recording exists (e.g., a second officer's camera, a fixed camera) so the reviewer knows the full record.
Do not write "camera malfunctioned" vaguely - give the specific cause and time.
3. The officer wants to add "the subject was clearly intoxicated." What is the problem, and how should it be handled?
Read the worked answer
Problem: "Clearly intoxicated" is a conclusion, not an observation. Intoxication is a medical/legal determination the officer is not qualified to make from appearance alone, and stating it as fact invites challenge ("On what basis?"). It also can be used to argue the officer was biased against the subject before contact.
How to handle it: Record the observable indicators instead, and attribute any opinion to its source:
- "I observed the subject had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and an unsteady gait."
- "EMS advised the subject appeared intoxicated." (attributed)
- If a field sobriety or breath test was done, cite the result.
Rule: Describe what you saw, heard, and smelled; let the reader (or a qualified examiner) draw the conclusion. If the conclusion matters, attribute it to the person qualified to make it.