We must change our “less is more” mentality on UOF reports to a “more is more” mindset for the next generation of police officers…
Law
enforcement officers are trained to document every minute detail in every
criminal investigation, incident, or traffic collision. But officers are too
frequently failing to appropriately document the application of force — they
too often fail to articulate the objective reasonableness of force they used on
a subject.
As
you know, law enforcement and the use of force is governed by the United States
Constitution Fourth Amendment, appropriate state statutes. The reality is that
the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in
Graham v. Connor provided clarity for what is objectively reasonable for the
application of force.
This
case — and subsequent decisions — allows for a lot of latitude with the lawful
(objectively reasonable) application of force, but officers routinely short
change their efforts with the application of force in their reports. We must
change our “less is more” mentality on UOF reports to a “more is more” mindset
for the next generation of police officers.
Telling
Your Story
Police professionals are excellent at
describing interactions between a suspect and victim. We tell their story well,
but we rarely share our story in full. Our story of a violent encounter —of why
the suspect forced us to use force to control any situation — is important and
we need to learn how to share it.
For
example, a police use of force report form limits the story telling of the
incident in which force was applied. This type of report allows for quick
reference and but it does not allow for a full telling of your story. Details
are lost, memories fade, and by the time civil litigation comes around, we’re
often left to wonder “what did those check marks really mean?” or “what are the
chicken scratches on the paper?”
The
story of an application of force needs to be as detailed as possible — detail
protects everyone, even the subject. The absence of details allows for
conjuncture and speculation that any civil attorney can use create problems for
you during litigation and depositions.
I contend “too much detail” does not create problems — it allows for a richer picture of the incident, and allows for fuller, more rich memory recall. A good report can clearly describe the whys and hows of an application of force.
Telling
the Subject’s Story
As a police officer there is also a need to
demonstrate in writing, the subject’s actions, all of their actions. The
subject’s actions, reactions, comments, statements, verbal utterances, and
physical features are important because it sets the stage for the application
of force.
The
lack of details about the subject again creates a void of information, which
cannot be filled once the report has been submitted, and a 1983 suit has been
filed. As a police officer, you only get one chance at it. How longer after an
incident can the civil suit be filed?
Storytelling
Suggestions
When you write a use of force report, start
with the call for service. Describe what was going on in your mind, what the
traffic conditions were, whether or not any other officers were responding,
whether you had prior contact with the suspect in the past. Include the
location of the crime, and obviously any information related to crime — weapons
or presence of other people at the scene. This sets the stage for preparing for
the contact.
Reflect
back on the scene. Document your observations, interactions, comments,
discussions, reactions, threats, and factors generally known as “the totality
of circumstances.” Continue to document your decisions and justification for
selection of a specific weapon or force option.
Understanding how to document objective reasonableness is relatively easy. The practical side of doing the documentation is not that easy!
Officers, recruits and FTO’s tell people the old street philosophy that less is more, but that adage needs to change. In UOF reports the “more is more” tactic protects the officer. We need to understand that tellingour stories is how we protect ourselves!
Conclusion
Without a fully written narrative of the
incident that including reasons, decisions, and actions, juries and armchair
quarterbacks alike will introduce conjecture and speculation. The “experts” who
weren’t there during the tense and rapidly unfolding incident will opine on the
reasonableness of your actions.So just tell a complete story. You need to put them into your shoes, your decision-making process.
