The Reader

The Reader
"The Reader," Fragonard

Saturday, June 20, 2015

The "7/7 Rule" Arrest Report, Simply Declarative


Based upon a previous class discussion in which the essay "A Simple, Declarative Sentence" was discussed, I have decided to submit for your slow reading pleasure an actual, albeit somewhat modified, arrest report. Such reports are completed by your University law enforcement officers and presented to various officers of the court for review, prosecution, sentencing, and hearings. 
 
I hope the report offers some insight as to the report writing aspects of law enforcement personnel and the need for the profession to complete these reports by way of simple declarative sentences. The use of compound-complex structured sentences within this realm would only cause confusion, possible rejection of cases, and a dis-service to those victimized by predators; as well as those accused. For as we all know, the criminal justice system was developed to serve the defendants.  

USC DR NO. 150-0000

USC SUPERVISOR APPROVING:                                                                                  

Arrestee:        Youngster, Bad
                        DOB 01/02/1900
                        (424) 911-0911

Source of Activity:

On 06/19/2015, at approximately 0820 hours I, Officer Male 1 #00000, was working for the University of Southern California (USC), Department of Public Safety (DPS). I was in full uniform and driving a marked patrol vehicle. I received a radio call of two male Blacks inside of the Seaver Science Library (910 Bloom Walk). The suspects took items from a closet on the third floor. The suspects were now heading north from the location. The suspects were in the area of 3620 McClintock Avenue. Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) incident #150619001166 was generated.

Investigation:

Upon my arrival I observed Officers Male 2, Female 1, and Female 2. They were attempting to physically detain the arrestee. He was later identified as Youngster, Bad. He was being very uncooperative and resisting the officers. I assisted taking Youngster into custody. Youngster was then escorted to the rear of a patrol unit. I then asked the officers what occurred. They stated the following:

Officer Male 2 was the first to arrive. He attempted to detain Youngster and the other suspect. He was identified as Youngster 2, Bad (DOB 01/02/2000). Youngster 2 stopped and complied with the officer’s instructions. Youngster refused to stop and attempted to continue on his way. Officer’s Female 2 and Female 1 arrived shortly thereafter. They spoke to Youngster while Officer Male 2 monitored Youngster 2. Officer Female 2 then walked up to Youngster. She told him that she needed to speak with him. He began to explain his actions to the officer. He was told that the officers understood and they still needed to speak to him. He was told to stay until the investigation was completed. He attempted to walk away again. Officer Female 2 placed her hand in front of his chest to stop him. She did not make contact with his body. She then explained to him that he was being detained and was not free to leave. He stopped walking and refused to listen to the officers’ explanation. He then clenched his fists. It appeared that he was either going to fight or flee. A use of force then occurred.

Use of Force:

Officer Male 2 took control of Youngster’s right bicep. He placed a c-grip with his right hand. Officer Female 2 took control of Youngster’s left elbow. She placed a c-grip with her left hand. She also attempted to take control of his right wrist. She used her right hand in doing so. She then pressed her left shoulder into his left shoulder. The move gave her more leverage. Officer Female 2 attempted to pass his arm to Officer Female 1. Officer Female 1 placed a wrist lock onto Youngster’s left wrist. She attempted to place handcuffs on him. Youngster grabbed officer Female 2’s fingers with his left hand three times. She was attempting to move his arm. He prevented her from moving it further than the small of his back. Youngster began to raise his voice and yelled “Don’t touch me!” Officer Male 2 told Youngster to calm down. He observed Youngster start to clench his fists. Officer Male 2 then took control of Youngster’s right wrist. He used his left hand as Youngster continued to resist. I then arrived and took control of Youngster’s right wrist. I used with both hands and applied a wrist lock. Officers Female 1 and Female 3 then placed two sets of handcuffs on Youngster.

Investigation Continued:

Youngster was placed into the rear seat of a patrol unit. I then conducted a theft investigation. My investigation revealed that Youngster and Youngster 2 were seen in two separate locations. The locations are open only to USC staff and faculty. There was no evidence of any theft.

Officers ran a LAPD Code-10 (want/warrant check) on Youngster. We discovered that he was on formal probation. Officer Male 2 contacted Youngster’s probation supervisor. She stated that Youngster was failing to abide by the terms of his probation. Officer Male 2 also advised her that officers had to use force to detain Youngster. She was told of his behavior and a ten day flash hold was issued.

Arrest:

Youngster was placed under arrest for outstanding warrant #X01942191.

Booking:

Youngster was transported to LAPD Southwest station for booking. He was then transported to LAPD 77Th Station for housing. Lieutenant Big Bars #00000 approved.

Medical Treatment/Injury:

Youngster was taken to processing. He stated that he was bi-polar, diabetic, and was HIV positive. He had not taken his medication for several days. He was treated and cleared for booking by 77Th Station medical staff (Dr. White Coat).

Photos, Recordings, Videos, Digital-In Car Video (DICV) and Digital Imaging:

None

Evidence:

None

Court Information:

Officers can testify to the contents of this report.

1 comment:

  1. A few quick procedural questions: since the close reads "Officers can testify to the contents of this report," I assume that each officer involved in the incident writes up a report from his / her point of view? If so, each officer abides by the 7/7 rule, and yet of course the reports will vary slightly from each other (depending on time one arrived at the scene, proximity to suspect, etc.)

    I'm just struck then by potential parallels between this exercise and the one Briony experiments with in Atonement (I know--atonement is fictional). Each officer's report will be slightly different, and so the truth of what happened--in the absence of body cameras, etc--becomes a product of the compiled reports.

    what is your feeling about body cameras? more objective than this kind of reporting? I'm curious.

    ReplyDelete