Rebuilding a Report That Would Not Survive Cross-Examination
You are reviewing a draft narrative before end of shift. Your sergeant flagged it - not because the arrest was wrong, but because the writing would not survive a defense challenge. The draft reads:
'On 03/14/24 at approximately 2145 hrs I was on patrol. Driving westbound on Court St. When I observed a vehicle run the stop sign at the corner of Court and 17th. I activated my emergency lights and the vehicle pulled over after about a block. The driver he said he didn't see the sign. I asked for license and insurance and he handed me a Oregon ID card, he stated his license was suspended. His eyes was bloodshot. I conducted SFSTs and he failed. He was arrested for DUI and transported to jail. The subject was very uncooperative and belligerent throughout the entire encounter.'
Your notes: the stop occurred at 2146; the driver produced an Oregon identification card only; HGN six clues, walk-and-turn four clues, one-leg stand three clues; two open containers in the cab; PBT 0.14; and he called you a vulgar name twice but complied with every instruction you gave.
1. Identify the mechanical problems and the conclusory or unsupported statements in the draft, and explain briefly why each one matters.
Read the worked answer
Sentence structure and mechanics:
- 'Driving westbound on Court St.' and 'When I observed...' are fragments; they read as notes, not a narrative.
- 'The driver he said' duplicates the subject - a pronoun error a reader stumbles over.
- 'a Oregon ID card, he stated' has the wrong article ('an') plus a comma splice.
- 'His eyes was bloodshot' is a subject-verb agreement error.
- 'approximately 2145 hrs' is redundant when your notes give 2146; an approximation the record contradicts is a gift to the defense.
- Passive 'He was arrested' obscures who did what; active voice ('I arrested') is the standard for police narratives.
Substance problems, which matter more than the grammar:
- 'he failed' is a conclusion, not an observation. Which tests, which clues, how many? As written, the defense can argue you cannot recall the foundation for probable cause.
- 'very uncooperative and belligerent' is editorial. It is also contradicted by your notes, which say he complied with every instruction and used a name twice. Overstated characterizations damage your credibility on the facts that matter.
- Missing entirely: the PBT result, the open containers, the reason the stop was lawful, the time of arrest, and the citation for the suspended license.
- Vague location ('after about a block') and vague direction of travel for the other vehicle.
Grammar errors annoy readers; conclusory statements lose cases. Fix both.
2. Rewrite the narrative so it is chronological, factual, active voice, and defensible. Do not invent facts your notes do not support.
Read the worked answer
On March 14, 2024, at 2146 hours, I was driving westbound on Court Street when I saw a vehicle fail to stop for the posted stop sign at Court Street and 17th Street. I activated my overhead emergency lights and siren. The vehicle stopped approximately one block later.
I contacted the driver and asked for his license, registration, and proof of insurance. He handed me an Oregon identification card and said his driving privilege was suspended. I observed that his eyes were bloodshot and that two open alcohol containers were in the passenger compartment.
I asked him to step from the vehicle and administered the standardized field sobriety tests. On the horizontal gaze nystagmus test I observed six of six clues; on the walk-and-turn test, four of eight; on the one-leg stand, three of four. He provided a preliminary breath sample that measured 0.14.
I arrested him for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, and transported him to the county jail, where I issued citations for DUII and driving while suspended. During the encounter he called me a vulgar name twice and complied with each instruction I gave.
Note what I did not do: I did not write 'approximately' over an exact time, I did not write that he 'failed' without the clue counts, and I replaced 'belligerent' with the actual words and the actual compliance. If my notes had been silent on the containers or the PBT, I would have left a bracketed placeholder for my sergeant rather than guess.
3. Why does the sentence 'The subject was very uncooperative and belligerent throughout the entire encounter' harm the report, and what should replace it?
Read the worked answer
Three problems, in ascending order of seriousness.
First, it is a conclusion, not an observation. 'Belligerent' is your characterization. A reader cannot evaluate it, agree with it, or test it.
Second, it is contradicted by the rest of the file. Your notes record that he complied with every instruction and said a name twice. Once a prosecutor or defense attorney finds one overstated line, they will re-read every other line looking for the same inflation - including the line about his eyes and the line about the stop sign.
Third, it invites a fight over tone instead of a fight over impairment. 'Belligerent' suggests you were provoked. That lets the defense reframe the encounter as an officer who lost patience and a defendant who was rude rather than impaired. Your probable cause was built on six HGN clues, four walk-and-turn clues, three one-leg-stand clues, and a 0.14 - not on his manners.
Replace it with behavior and quotation: 'He called me [vulgar term] twice and complied with each instruction I gave.' If he raised his voice, say so and give the words. If he pulled away during the pat search, describe the movement. Specific, checkable facts hold up; adjectives do not.