Fixing the Draft: A Break-In Report That Would Not Survive Review
A colleague asks you to review a draft narrative before it goes to investigations:
"On 03/14 at approx. 2:15 a.m., I was dispatched to 1420 Ash St. in regards to a possible break in. Upon arrival I observed the front window was broke and there was glass on the porch. Me and Ofc. Reyes made entry, the resident was not home. We cleared the residence and found no one inside. The suspect(s) fled the scene prior to our arrival. There was a TV missing from the living room and it appeared that the back door was pried open with a tool. The homeowner arrived at 2:35 a.m., she stated that nothing else was took and she didn't know who would do this. Report forwarded to investigations."
1. Identify at least six distinct problems in the draft, naming the type of problem for each.
Read the worked answer
- Spelling/word form: 'break in' (noun) should be 'break-in'; 'broke' should be 'broken'; 'took' should be 'taken'.
- Pronoun case: 'Me and Ofc. Reyes' should be 'Ofc. Reyes and I' - subject position.
- Comma splice / run-on: 'We cleared the residence and found no one inside' is fine, but 'made entry, the resident was not home' joins two independent clauses with only a comma.
- Vagueness: 'suspect(s)' is a placeholder. If no suspect was seen, say so; if a description exists, give it. A slash is not a description.
- Speculation stated as observation: 'it appeared that the back door was pried open with a tool' asserts a method no one witnessed. What was observed is damage of a particular shape to the door and frame; the tool is an inference.
- Register and precision: 'in regards to' → 'regarding'; 'approx.' → spell out or use the exact CAD time; 'prior to' → 'before'; 'didn't' → 'did not' (contractions do not belong in a formal narrative).
- Missing actor: who is 'she' after two intervening clauses? Name the homeowner once and then use 'the homeowner'.
- Conclusion without support: 'fled the scene prior to our arrival' assumes a departure that was never observed. Say the residence was unoccupied on arrival and no one was located inside.
2. Rewrite the narrative as a clear, factual report of roughly the same length.
Read the worked answer
On 03/14/- at 02:15 hours I was dispatched to 1420 Ash Street regarding a possible break-in. On arrival I observed that the front window was broken and that glass was on the porch. Ofc. Reyes and I made entry; the resident was not home. We cleared the residence and located no one inside. The living room television was missing. The rear door and frame showed damage consistent with having been forced; no tool was located. The homeowner arrived at 02:35 hours. She stated that nothing else was missing and that she did not know who might have done this. Report forwarded to Investigations.
Note what the rewrite changes beyond grammar: 'consistent with having been forced' reports the observation and flags the inference; 'fled the scene' is gone because it was never observed; the time is in 24-hour format matching the dispatch log. Accuracy is the point - a narrative that asserts an unwitnessed departure creates a fact the case will have to defend.
3. The grammar is now clean. What is still missing that an investigator would need?
Read the worked answer
Clean prose does not make a complete report.
- Identifiers: case or CAD number, report date, and the reporting officer's name and badge.
- Times of key events: entry, clearing the residence, and the homeowner's arrival are the timeline the defense will test. The draft gives only two times.
- Evidence and processing: was the scene secured and held, were prints lifted from the glass or door, was a photograph taken of the damage, was a serial number obtained for the missing television? A TV without a serial number is nearly unrecoverable.
- Point of entry reasoning: if entry was through the broken front window, why was the rear door also damaged? Unexplained, this is the first question investigations will ask.
- Canvass: were neighboring units contacted for witnesses or camera footage?
- Security and follow-up: was the residence secured before clearing, and was the homeowner advised on next steps?
- Disposition: the draft says 'forwarded to investigations' but not whether the homeowner was given a case number or contact information.
A reviewer should be able to reconstruct the call from the report alone. Right now they could not.