The Report That Must Be Rewritten
An officer submits an incident narrative with these sentences: "The subject was observed to be in the vicinity of the location at approximately the time in question. It was determined that the subject did proceed in a northerly direction subsequent to the aforementioned observation. Contact was initiated and the subject was found to be in possession of a device consistent with the description provided. The subject was then placed into custody." The supervisor needs a factual narrative that states who did what, when, and where, with no vague qualifiers, and that distinguishes observation from conclusion.
1. Using Written Expression, rewrite the narrative into clear, factual sentences.
Read the worked answer
At about [time], I saw the subject near [location]. I watched the subject walk north from that spot. I approached and made contact. The subject had a device matching the description given to me. I then took the subject into custody.
The rewrite removes "in the vicinity," "approximately the time in question," "it was determined," "proceeded," "subsequent to," and "aforementioned." Each sentence now names the actor (I or the subject) and states a concrete action in time order.
2. Identify the vague qualifiers and conclusions in the original and explain why each weakens the report.
Read the worked answer
Vague qualifiers: "in the vicinity" (where exactly?), "approximately the time in question" (what time?), "a device consistent with the description" (what device?). Conclusions or passive constructions: "It was determined" and "was observed to be" hide who observed and how. "Proceeded in a northerly direction" is inflated language that obscures a simple fact. Each weakens the report because it cannot be tested: a reader cannot tell what the officer personally saw versus inferred, and cannot locate the events in time or space. Factual, active sentences let a reviewer or court verify each claim.