False
Reports
Reports
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
When people lie to you, or they make false reports about anything, it's
not normally a big deal. However, when you, a police officer, make a
false report about anything, it is a very big deal.
When you become a police officer, you'll experience frustration when
you realize that few things will be totally under your control. However,
there is one thing that is totally under your control, and the only way
you can lose that control is if you relinquish it through dishonesty,
incompetence, stupidity, or indifference. Your credibility is yours to
cherish and preserve, or it's yours to lose...there is no middle ground.
When you prepare a report, and you put your name to it, you're stating
that the contents of that report are true and accurate to the best of your
knowledge. It doesn't matter if the subject of your report is a minor
incident or one of more importance. Truth and accuracy are not applied
on a sliding scale. They are applicable to everything all of the time.
If you join a police department where supervisors and commanders
insist on accuracy, and the department has a quality control system in
place to ensure the integrity of its reporting practices, you'll experience
continuous reminders of the importance of credibility. If you join a
police department where supervisors and commanders are more
interested in reducing the reported incidents of crime than they are in
ensuring accuracy, you'll be exposed to bad influences, and it will be
your sole responsibility to protect your credibility.
When police officers, whether from dishonesty or simple laziness,
knowingly submit false reports, they place themselves and others in
jeopardy.
You'll probably agree that I did the right thing by questioning the
content of that arrest warrant, but doing the right thing will never make
you immune from criticism. I received a fair amount of criticism from
some other police officers and supervisors. You'll learn that some
police officers, no matter their experience or rank, take a pretty narrow
view of a lot of things. Those same officers and supervisors considered
my actions to be worse than the total incompetence displayed by the
original police officer who did absolutely nothing and topped it off with a
blatantly false report. That incompetent officer escaped all criticism, or
worse, through the only competent thing he'd probably ever done as a
police officer...he resigned.
Before you even become a police officer, you must realize that your
credibility will be the most important thing you own. Every report you
write will follow you forever, and if you knowingly make a false report,
you'll be doing a grave injustice to yourself and those you serve. Most
police officers who write false reports, as in the example above, justify
that despicable act as a matter of expediency, because they don't view
the incidents of sufficient importance. Big or small, a lie is a lie, and if
you do it, it makes you a liar.
not normally a big deal. However, when you, a police officer, make a
false report about anything, it is a very big deal.
When you become a police officer, you'll experience frustration when
you realize that few things will be totally under your control. However,
there is one thing that is totally under your control, and the only way
you can lose that control is if you relinquish it through dishonesty,
incompetence, stupidity, or indifference. Your credibility is yours to
cherish and preserve, or it's yours to lose...there is no middle ground.
When you prepare a report, and you put your name to it, you're stating
that the contents of that report are true and accurate to the best of your
knowledge. It doesn't matter if the subject of your report is a minor
incident or one of more importance. Truth and accuracy are not applied
on a sliding scale. They are applicable to everything all of the time.
If you join a police department where supervisors and commanders
insist on accuracy, and the department has a quality control system in
place to ensure the integrity of its reporting practices, you'll experience
continuous reminders of the importance of credibility. If you join a
police department where supervisors and commanders are more
interested in reducing the reported incidents of crime than they are in
ensuring accuracy, you'll be exposed to bad influences, and it will be
your sole responsibility to protect your credibility.
When police officers, whether from dishonesty or simple laziness,
knowingly submit false reports, they place themselves and others in
jeopardy.
You'll probably agree that I did the right thing by questioning the
content of that arrest warrant, but doing the right thing will never make
you immune from criticism. I received a fair amount of criticism from
some other police officers and supervisors. You'll learn that some
police officers, no matter their experience or rank, take a pretty narrow
view of a lot of things. Those same officers and supervisors considered
my actions to be worse than the total incompetence displayed by the
original police officer who did absolutely nothing and topped it off with a
blatantly false report. That incompetent officer escaped all criticism, or
worse, through the only competent thing he'd probably ever done as a
police officer...he resigned.
Before you even become a police officer, you must realize that your
credibility will be the most important thing you own. Every report you
write will follow you forever, and if you knowingly make a false report,
you'll be doing a grave injustice to yourself and those you serve. Most
police officers who write false reports, as in the example above, justify
that despicable act as a matter of expediency, because they don't view
the incidents of sufficient importance. Big or small, a lie is a lie, and if
you do it, it makes you a liar.
The year was 1990. I had just changed over to day work,
and day work always brings housekeeping duties like
serving criminal summonses or misdemeanor arrest
warrants. As I sat at roll call glancing through several
summonses and a couple of arrest warrants, one name
immediately caught my attention. It was not a common
name; instead, it was a very recognizable name. A man by
the same name was a Maryland State Senator. The name
appeared as the defendant on one of the arrest warrants
charging the defendant with misdemeanor theft under $300.
The warrant was in the form of a warrant control sheet. It
verified the existence of the arrest warrant filed at the
department's Central Records Division. The warrant
control sheet didn't have a copy of the probable cause
statement attached, so I had no idea regarding the details of
the offense. It didn't matter, the control sheet was all I
needed to lawfully execute the warrant and take the
defendant into custody. In fact, you'll learn that a police
officer is never to question the content of an arrest warrant.
The rule is simple. A court issues an arrest warrant, and a
police officer executes the arrest warrant. However...as you
read on, you'll see another example where there will always
be an exception to every rule. Just remember...if you ever
go up against a judge, you'd better have all your facts and
be 100% right.
When I looked at the defendant's address, I assumed the
defendant must be another person who just had the same
name. I knew the neighborhood wherein the Senator
resided, and the address on the warrant was located in a
different area of the district all together. I was curious
since the defendant's date of birth put the defendant within
the Senator's age range, so I made that warrant my first
order of business that morning.
I knocked on the front door of the two story row home. As
I was about to knock a second time, the door opened, and a
man greeted me, "Good morning, Officer." My silent pause
evoked a question from the man, "Can I help you,
Officer?" My response put an expression of bewilderment
on the man's face, "It really is you," I said as I smiled.
"Pardon me," the Senator asked? "I have a warrant for
your arrest, Senator." The Senator tilted his head, and the
blank expression on his face turned to a small smile. He
leaned his head forward, and he glanced up and down the
street as if looking for someone he knew. He then asked,
"This is a joke...right?"
The Senator had good reason to believe he was being
subjected to a practical joke since the General Election was
only three days away, and he was running for re-election to
his state senate seat. While the Senator may have first
suspected a joke, my well learned suspicious nature made
the whole thing smell bad to me.
I explained all that I knew about the warrant to the
Senator, and he stressed that he could add nothing since he
had no idea what had caused a warrant to be issued for his
arrest. The Senator simply asked, "What do we do now?" I
explained that, as a matter of law, I was required to take
him into custody. The Senator nodded and stated, "I'll do
whatever you say, Officer." Now, here was a guy who had
been a senator for many years -- a politician -- and he
wasn't giving me anything close to a hard time. Of course,
I'd already determined that I wanted to see the actual
warrant, before I put my handcuffs on this man.
During our conversation, I learned that the house was
owned by the Senator, but it was a vacant rental property.
It was just a coincidence that I'd located the Senator at the
residence since he'd only stopped by to check on the
security of the house. I directed the Senator to go home,
call his attorney, and wait for me to contact him. Talk
about a sincere look of gratitude...the Senator thanked me,
and he assured me he would anxiously await my return.
I stood at the counter in the Central Records Division
reading the probable cause statement within the actual
arrest warrant. Firstly, the charging document had
originally been issued as a criminal summons by a court
commissioner. The criminal summons simply required the
signature of the defendant to promise to appear for
trial...just like a traffic citation. Of course, since the
Senator did not reside at the address on the summons,
previous efforts to serve the summons had been
unsuccessful. After thirty days, and several unsuccessful
attempts to serve, the summons had been returned to the
court where a District Court judge upgraded the summons
to an arrest warrant.
It was clear from the typed portion of the document that the
victim, or the court commissioner, had identified the
defendant from property records, because the court
commissioner initially typed the names of both the Senator
and his wife as the defendant. Since only one person goes
on one charging document, someone had crossed out the
name of the wife.
The probable cause statement, itself, had been written by
the victim who was the owner of another vacant house next
to the Senator's house. The victim, like the Senator on this
day, had previously stopped by her property to check its
security. She found an electrical extension cord running
between her house and the Senator's house. The suspect(s)
had entered the victim's house through a window and
plugged the cord into an outlet. The other end of the cord
ran through a partially opened window of the Senator's
house. The victim was alleging theft of electricity. The
charge of theft was incomplete. The top charge should have
been burglary since the victim's house had been entered by
the suspect(s). Anyway, so far, so good.
The part I liked best was the victim's description of the
police response. The victim identified the police officer by
name and badge number. She described how she showed
the officer every physical aspect of the offense. She even
listed the central complaint number of the report which the
officer provided to her. Since I was right at the counter, I
filled out a request form for a copy of the police report, and
I handed it to the police cadet. Moments later, the cadet
returned with a copy of the officer's report.
It didn't take long to read that report. The offense box said,
"Unfounded Larceny." The narrative was longer by one
word, "No larceny occurred."
I immediately set about investigating the incident since this
was the first time it received any police attention. I soon
identified a suspect who, prior to the offense, had been
doing repairs to the Senator's rental property. During his
employment, the suspect had copied the key to the front
door. After the repairs were completed, the Senator had
the electricity turned off, but the suspect returned and used
his unauthorized key to take up residence in the house.
When the Senator was made aware of the suspect's
presence, the Senator ordered him from the dwelling, and
he had the door lock changed.
My next stop was the District Court where I met with the
judge who issued the arrest warrant. The Judge, a very
competent one I might add, read the results of my
investigation with great interest. Shaking her head, the
Judge simply asked, "How did I miss that?" She was
referring to missing the Senator's name, and the
circumstance of the upcoming election. The fact was that
criminal summonses being upgraded to arrest warrants was
a routine matter that occurred in no small numbers. Had
she recognized the circumstances, she would have had the
same questions I did, and the summons would have received
more scrutiny, before it was upgraded to an arrest warrant.
With the arrest warrant for the Senator recalled, I set
about obtaining the proper warrants charging the proper
suspect with burglaries of both vacant houses. As for the
Senator, he still had to suffer the embarrassment of
appearing before the same judge to have the original charge
against him dismissed in open court. Of course, that Judge
was just as embarrassed as the Senator.
and day work always brings housekeeping duties like
serving criminal summonses or misdemeanor arrest
warrants. As I sat at roll call glancing through several
summonses and a couple of arrest warrants, one name
immediately caught my attention. It was not a common
name; instead, it was a very recognizable name. A man by
the same name was a Maryland State Senator. The name
appeared as the defendant on one of the arrest warrants
charging the defendant with misdemeanor theft under $300.
The warrant was in the form of a warrant control sheet. It
verified the existence of the arrest warrant filed at the
department's Central Records Division. The warrant
control sheet didn't have a copy of the probable cause
statement attached, so I had no idea regarding the details of
the offense. It didn't matter, the control sheet was all I
needed to lawfully execute the warrant and take the
defendant into custody. In fact, you'll learn that a police
officer is never to question the content of an arrest warrant.
The rule is simple. A court issues an arrest warrant, and a
police officer executes the arrest warrant. However...as you
read on, you'll see another example where there will always
be an exception to every rule. Just remember...if you ever
go up against a judge, you'd better have all your facts and
be 100% right.
When I looked at the defendant's address, I assumed the
defendant must be another person who just had the same
name. I knew the neighborhood wherein the Senator
resided, and the address on the warrant was located in a
different area of the district all together. I was curious
since the defendant's date of birth put the defendant within
the Senator's age range, so I made that warrant my first
order of business that morning.
I knocked on the front door of the two story row home. As
I was about to knock a second time, the door opened, and a
man greeted me, "Good morning, Officer." My silent pause
evoked a question from the man, "Can I help you,
Officer?" My response put an expression of bewilderment
on the man's face, "It really is you," I said as I smiled.
"Pardon me," the Senator asked? "I have a warrant for
your arrest, Senator." The Senator tilted his head, and the
blank expression on his face turned to a small smile. He
leaned his head forward, and he glanced up and down the
street as if looking for someone he knew. He then asked,
"This is a joke...right?"
The Senator had good reason to believe he was being
subjected to a practical joke since the General Election was
only three days away, and he was running for re-election to
his state senate seat. While the Senator may have first
suspected a joke, my well learned suspicious nature made
the whole thing smell bad to me.
I explained all that I knew about the warrant to the
Senator, and he stressed that he could add nothing since he
had no idea what had caused a warrant to be issued for his
arrest. The Senator simply asked, "What do we do now?" I
explained that, as a matter of law, I was required to take
him into custody. The Senator nodded and stated, "I'll do
whatever you say, Officer." Now, here was a guy who had
been a senator for many years -- a politician -- and he
wasn't giving me anything close to a hard time. Of course,
I'd already determined that I wanted to see the actual
warrant, before I put my handcuffs on this man.
During our conversation, I learned that the house was
owned by the Senator, but it was a vacant rental property.
It was just a coincidence that I'd located the Senator at the
residence since he'd only stopped by to check on the
security of the house. I directed the Senator to go home,
call his attorney, and wait for me to contact him. Talk
about a sincere look of gratitude...the Senator thanked me,
and he assured me he would anxiously await my return.
I stood at the counter in the Central Records Division
reading the probable cause statement within the actual
arrest warrant. Firstly, the charging document had
originally been issued as a criminal summons by a court
commissioner. The criminal summons simply required the
signature of the defendant to promise to appear for
trial...just like a traffic citation. Of course, since the
Senator did not reside at the address on the summons,
previous efforts to serve the summons had been
unsuccessful. After thirty days, and several unsuccessful
attempts to serve, the summons had been returned to the
court where a District Court judge upgraded the summons
to an arrest warrant.
It was clear from the typed portion of the document that the
victim, or the court commissioner, had identified the
defendant from property records, because the court
commissioner initially typed the names of both the Senator
and his wife as the defendant. Since only one person goes
on one charging document, someone had crossed out the
name of the wife.
The probable cause statement, itself, had been written by
the victim who was the owner of another vacant house next
to the Senator's house. The victim, like the Senator on this
day, had previously stopped by her property to check its
security. She found an electrical extension cord running
between her house and the Senator's house. The suspect(s)
had entered the victim's house through a window and
plugged the cord into an outlet. The other end of the cord
ran through a partially opened window of the Senator's
house. The victim was alleging theft of electricity. The
charge of theft was incomplete. The top charge should have
been burglary since the victim's house had been entered by
the suspect(s). Anyway, so far, so good.
The part I liked best was the victim's description of the
police response. The victim identified the police officer by
name and badge number. She described how she showed
the officer every physical aspect of the offense. She even
listed the central complaint number of the report which the
officer provided to her. Since I was right at the counter, I
filled out a request form for a copy of the police report, and
I handed it to the police cadet. Moments later, the cadet
returned with a copy of the officer's report.
It didn't take long to read that report. The offense box said,
"Unfounded Larceny." The narrative was longer by one
word, "No larceny occurred."
I immediately set about investigating the incident since this
was the first time it received any police attention. I soon
identified a suspect who, prior to the offense, had been
doing repairs to the Senator's rental property. During his
employment, the suspect had copied the key to the front
door. After the repairs were completed, the Senator had
the electricity turned off, but the suspect returned and used
his unauthorized key to take up residence in the house.
When the Senator was made aware of the suspect's
presence, the Senator ordered him from the dwelling, and
he had the door lock changed.
My next stop was the District Court where I met with the
judge who issued the arrest warrant. The Judge, a very
competent one I might add, read the results of my
investigation with great interest. Shaking her head, the
Judge simply asked, "How did I miss that?" She was
referring to missing the Senator's name, and the
circumstance of the upcoming election. The fact was that
criminal summonses being upgraded to arrest warrants was
a routine matter that occurred in no small numbers. Had
she recognized the circumstances, she would have had the
same questions I did, and the summons would have received
more scrutiny, before it was upgraded to an arrest warrant.
With the arrest warrant for the Senator recalled, I set
about obtaining the proper warrants charging the proper
suspect with burglaries of both vacant houses. As for the
Senator, he still had to suffer the embarrassment of
appearing before the same judge to have the original charge
against him dismissed in open court. Of course, that Judge
was just as embarrassed as the Senator.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2009 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
| Online Video Learning Systems: Police Exam - U.S. Border Patrol Exam |