02:10 at the Bus Shelter
You are a constable in your second year, partnered with Senior Constable Reyes, who has 19 years' service and has twice covered for a mistake of yours. At 02:10 during a foot patrol you stop to speak with a homeless man sleeping in a bus shelter. He is sober, compliant and commits no offence; local bylaws do not allow a move-on direction at this location. Reyes uses a mocking imitation of the man's accent and tells him to 'move along or else'. Your body-worn camera is recording. On the walk back Reyes says the man is 'a regular', that nothing will come of it, and that your probation review is in three weeks.
1. What do you do in the next 60 seconds? Give your actions in order, with one sentence of justification each.
Read the worked answer
- Keep the camera running and do not join in. Laughing or echoing the remark converts you from witness to participant, and the recording is the only independent record either of you will have.
- Close the contact lawfully, in your own words, to the man. 'Sir, you haven't done anything wrong, you're free to go - sorry to wake you.' There are no grounds for a direction here, so anything that continues the encounter is an unlawful detention.
- Do not stage a public correction of Reyes in front of the man. The immediate duty is to restore the man's position, not to win an argument; a confrontation at 02:10 in a bus shelter escalates risk for everyone.
- Note the time and the exact words while they are fresh - after the contact ends, before anything else.
- Raise it with Reyes privately once clear of the man. Describe the behaviour and its effect, not his character: 'The accent thing - he'd done nothing wrong and I don't think we can justify that.'
Ordering principle: the member of the public's lawful position and dignity first, the partner relationship second, your own discomfort last. Doing nothing while the camera records leaves you as a silent party to misconduct.
2. Later Reyes says: 'You back me or you're done here.' What do you say, what do you do within the next 24 hours, and what must you not do?
Read the worked answer
What you say: something short that is neither agreement nor threat. 'I'll write what happened, and I'll be accurate.' Do not promise to leave anything out, do not agree to a shared version of events, and do not promise to stay silent. A promise extracted under pressure is still a promise, and it is the one that ends a career.
Within 24 hours:
- Make a contemporaneous notebook entry, timed, quoting the exact words used and the context in which they were said.
- Flag the body-worn footage for retention so it is not overwritten on the usual cycle.
- Report the original conduct, and the follow-up remark, to your sergeant or shift supervisor. If that supervisor works closely with Reyes, go up one level; the duty to report is not satisfied by telling the person most likely to bury it.
- Keep a personal copy of the dates and times of what you reported and to whom.
What you must not do: alter or delete footage; discuss the matter with other members before reporting; write a statement that omits the remark; confront Reyes in front of colleagues; or treat your probation as a reason to stay quiet. Retaliation over a report is itself a reportable matter, and probation is a reason to be careful, not a licence to conceal.
3. Write the two-sentence notebook entry you would make about the walk-back conversation, and explain what makes it defensible.
Read the worked answer
Entry: 'At 02:20, walking east on Fitzroy Street with SC Reyes after the bus shelter contact, SC Reyes said to me: "You back me or you're done here." I made this entry at 02:41 at the station.'
Why it is defensible:
- It is timed at both ends - when it happened and when it was written - which answers the first question any reviewer asks about a delayed entry.
- It quotes rather than characterises: 'he threatened me' is an opinion; the quoted words let the reader judge.
- It records the location and the other party so the entry can be checked against CAD, camera and roster records.
- It contains no conclusion about guilt or motive, so it cannot be attacked as advocacy.
- It is made before the report, not after, so it cannot be described as reconstructed to fit a version already given.