Writing a use-of-force report

A use-of-force report is judged on whether it describes what the officer perceived and why the response was reasonable at that moment — not on whether the force was ultimately necessary.

7 min read

What the report has to establish

Graham v. Connor is the standard almost every agency policy is built on: reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with hindsight. That has a direct consequence for writing. The report must record what the officer knew and perceived at the time, in the order it became known.

Three things carry most of the weight. The severity of the offense at issue. Whether the subject posed an immediate threat to the officer or others. And whether the subject was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

A report that states the force used but not the perception that justified it has left out the part that matters. This is the most common reason a report that documents lawful conduct still creates a problem.

The failure that causes the most trouble

Writing a conclusion where an observation belongs. "The subject became combative" is a characterization. It tells a reviewer what the officer decided, not what the officer saw. Two years later, in a deposition, the officer will be asked what "combative" meant, and the report will not help them.

The fix is mechanical: describe the behavior, and let the conclusion follow from it.

Weaker

“The subject became combative and I used force to gain compliance.”

Stronger

“The subject pulled his right arm away as I attempted to place it behind his back, turned his shoulders toward me, and raised his closed right fist to chest height. I delivered one strike to his right forearm and placed him against the vehicle.”

The second version lets a reviewer reach the officer’s conclusion themselves. The first asks them to take it on trust.

Weaker

“I feared for my safety.”

Stronger

“The subject was approximately four feet from me, had refused three commands to show his hands, and kept his right hand inside his jacket pocket. The area was unlit and no backup had arrived.”

Fear is a state of mind and cannot be reviewed. Distance, lighting, commands given and hand position can.

Record what was tried first

Most policies expect some account of why a lesser option was not used, or was used and failed. If verbal commands were given, state how many and what they were. If a lower level of force was attempted, state what happened.

An absence here reads as an omission even when nothing was skipped. If no lesser option was available, the report should say why — distance closing, weapon seen, no cover.

Before you submit

Read the narrative once as though you are someone who was not there and who is looking for the gap.

Every use of force is tied to a specific observed behavior that preceded it
Distance, lighting and the subject’s hands are described at the moment force was used
Commands given are quoted or summarized, with how many times
Lesser options are accounted for — tried, or explained as unavailable
Injuries to the subject and to the officer are recorded, including none
Medical aid offered or rendered is recorded, with the time
No characterization stands in for an observation

Narrative AI runs these checks automatically. Its pre-submission audit reads the report before it is filed and flags the gaps above — vague force language, justification that was never articulated, timelines that do not match CAD — while the officer can still fix them.

How the pre-submission audit works →

This guide is general and is not legal advice. Standards differ by state and by agency policy; where they conflict with anything here, your policy and your prosecutor govern.