Constructing the Police Report

In every case, the goal of the investigation is to find the truth. In most cases, when possible, interview the victims first. Then interview the witnesses in the order of who appears most reliable or knowledgeable about the incident. The last person talked to in most cases should be the offenders. Most people, under the right set of circumstances, will legally and lawfully talk to the police. That said, the offender in a criminal case not only is the one with the most to lose but also the one who may have the most intimate knowledge of what happened, why it happened, how it happened, when it happened, where it happened, and to whom it happened. If officers attempt to talk to an offender without as much knowledge of the incident as possible, the offender will quickly realize that the interviewer does not know what is going on and is conducting a “fishing” expedition, or fishing for information that she does not have. Nothing ensures an offender will give untruthful or misleading statements more than an ill–prepared investigator.

Additionally, in the quest to find the truth, finding witnesses can be a major obstacle. People are often scared, uninterested, unaware of an investigation, unwilling to get involved, or loyal to the offender. Experienced investigators will tell you that it is often more difficult to find witnesses than it is to find and arrest an offender. One of the best traits that an investigator can have is being able to think outside of the box. Being observant, open–minded, and willing to listen and possessing common sense, savvy, and street smarts are all qualities that aid in one's ability to think outside of the box. Often in a criminal investigation, persons are not truthful, persons are hard to locate, and information is incomplete. Being able to think abstractly will aid greatly in dealing with victims, witnesses, and offenders. Having a good sense of whether someone is lying or telling the truth is also an important quality.

When talking to people, use eye contact and treat people with respect. Introduce yourself; let a victim or witness know that you are there to help; and offer him food, beverage, or a cigarette. Let victims know you are aware they need help. With both victims and witnesses, remind them that they are doing the right thing and appeal to their sense of goodness. Be a good listener, look at the person, do not interrupt, use appropriate body language, be courteous where the situation calls for it, appear interested, ask questions, and take notes.

In finding a style of interviewing, the best approach is to be aware of who you are and to be yourself. While watching other's interviewing approaches and styles is certainly a good way to learn, eventually we all develop our own style. Do not try to be someone else. When interviewing, keep in mind the wide variety of different ethnicities, nationalities, age groups, lifestyles, socioeconomic groups, and sexual preferences you will come into contact with and respect those differences. Few occupations deal with the diversity of the U.S. population as much as the police. It is always good to know the language of the street, slang, and gang terminology. You do not want to use these terms in your conversation, unless, for example, you are working undercover, but you do want to understand what people are telling you.

Always make sure to separate those with knowledge of the incident from one another. Victims, witnesses, and offenders should always be placed in different areas so that you are truly getting one's individual version of events, not a group account. While initial interviews may be done on the street, it is always good to conduct follow-up interviews in a private setting. A police station is often the best place to conduct interviews and often allows officers access to law enforcement resources, such as computers. Additionally, many persons do not like their neighbors to see them talking to the police, so a police station allows for privacy.

Ask people their names. Attempt to verify their names by requesting identification. Other information that you will need is phone numbers, including those of relatives, as many people frequently change numbers or may have their phones disconnected. You also want addresses, business phone numbers, cell phone numbers, associates’Äô phone numbers, occupations, Social Security numbers, and birth dates. If the case eventually goes to trial, a substantial amount of time may have passed, and the person may have moved and be difficult to find. If you have all of the above information, however, the person can be found. If they are working at a gas station in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, on public aid in Amarillo, Texas, or in jail in Eugene, Oregon, someone can find them.

Unless the investigator personally knows the victim or witness and recognizes both the person’Äôs voice and phone number, interviews should be conducted in person, not over the phone. A phone interview can create problems later, as there is no way to verify the person's identity. In cases where the victim or witness later denies saying what she told the investigator, a phone interview becomes very problematic.

Always assess the person to whom you are talking. Is she mumbling? Does he have a limp handshake? Does he carry himself like a tough guy? Is she defiant? Does she laugh nervously? Does he seem embarrassed about the situation? Is he scared? Does she try to out–shout you? Do not put these assessments in your reports–reports are for facts, not opinions. Also, do not be close–minded or assume things about the victim. However, initial impressions by an experienced and talented investigator are often correct. An investigator also must ask himself/herself if the victim or witness may have had any criminal involvement. It must be determined if the questioning is an interview or an interrogation. Once questions are asked that are designed to elicit an incriminating response, Miranda warnings must be given, and the situation is no longer an interview.

When talking to witnesses, review whether the witness' statements are consistent with each other, with those of other witnesses, with the physical evidence, and with the findings of medical personnel. Ask whether the witness has any motive to lie. What was the witness' point of view; is there anything he should have been able to view but did not, and was there anything that may have blocked his view? Officers must be able to account for all known witnesses–including circumstantial, alibi, outcry, and witnesses to the offense. How was identification made? Lineups should be conducted where the victim or witness does not know the offender by first and last name. A photo array should be conducted pre–arrest, but a post–arrest photo array should be conducted if a lineup can not be conducted, such as when the victim, witness, or offender are in the hospital or when there are not enough persons with physical characteristics similar to those of the offender to participate in the lineup.

Before talking to the offender, officers should attempt to read all available reports and determine whether or not they believe the offender committed the crime. They should also determine if there are any alternative suspects or additional suspects, how the offender was identified by the victim, what led the police to suspect that the offender was involved in the crime, and what the offender's motive was. The investigator should also attempt to determine the relationship between the offender and the other suspects. Was the offender known to the victims or witnesses (whether by legal name or street name), and if so, was that identifier given to the police during the intitial interview–and why or why not? Ask the offender when the decision was made to commit the offense, why, and what the motive was. What planning went into the selection of the time, date, and location? How was the victim selected? What conversation occurred between the offenders, what weapons were obtained, and how were proceeds to be divided? What route was taken to the crime scene, why, and what did the offenders talk about on the way to the scene? Where were the weapons, and were they loaded? Have the offenders describe the offense and the crime scene in detail and go over all of the elements of the crime. Was anyone injured? By whom and how? If the offender – was a lookout, or accountable, go over situations where the offender did or did not see victims, witnesses, and police and why that particular lookout position was chosen. If the offender was a getaway driver, why did she wait at a particular location, was the engine running, and did she have a preplanned escape route? What was the escape route, what happened with the weapons used, was anything taken, and where are the proceeds now? Did the offender ever tell anyone about the incident and, if so, whom?

Determine in every case the relationships among the witnesses and the victims and the offenders. Figure out who discovered the crime and who reported it. Determine what the victim was doing before and during the offense. What type of car did the offender have? Get good descriptions of the offender, from head to toe. Ask what the offender said and if there was anything distinctive about that person's speech or mannerisms.

What The Pros Say...

DETECTIVE MARK DIMEO: It doesn't sound as glamorous when your work exonerates someone, but we in law enforcement work for the truth.

Run a computer check on your alleged offender and obtain his criminal record, if any. Do the same for your victim and witnesses. It can only be helpful to have more information at your disposal.

ATTORNEY PATRICK COTTER: Officers should be aware that defense attorneys will try to exploit any failure to interview any witness whose presence or awareness of relevant evidence comes up in a trial. If witnesses tell the jury that five people were at the scene of the alleged crime, officers need to explain that interviews of all were taken or, at least, have a plausible explanation for why all five were not interviewed. Otherwise, the defense can have a field day pointing out the failure to make such elementary efforts to get the truth and even suggest that the police have “cherry picked” only the witnesses who support the defendant's guilt.

I once had a case where two individuals were accused of battery to a police officer. The alleged act took place in front of a bar. The police reports reflected only interviews of three witnesses who had been in the bar, and all supported the police version of events. However, those same witnesses admitted at trial that other people were in the bar and watched the fight. They also admitted that several of those other people were observed on the scene after the fight speaking with police officers. With remarkably little effort, we were then able to find four other individuals who had been in the bar that evening, had seen the fight, and who had, in fact, even spoken to the police, albeit very briefly. The failure of the officers involved to record those witnesses as being present or to take and memorialize statements from them seriously eroded the officers' credibility with the jury. The truth was that much of what the unnamed witnesses had to say was not helpful to the defense, but the mere fact that it appeared that the police had intentionally or negligently failed to record their presence and statements hurt the prosecution.

Patrick Morley is a State's Attorney assigned to the Cold Case Unit. A Chicago police officer and Sergeant for seven years, Morley is an adjunct instructor at Kaplan University and the University of Illinois–Chicago, teaching criminal investigations and criminal law. He has led over 200 seminars to Chicago area police officers as an instructor for NERMT on search and seizure and other legal issues. The information above is taken from his book “Report Writing for Criminal Justice Professionals” which is available to purchase from The Bookshelf