Report Writing and the Objective Standard

Introduction: Why Understanding the 4th Amendment Matters for Police Reports and Statements (Interviews)

Police work often involves tough, fast decisions, especially in high-stress situations where force might be used. But what happens after? If someone claims the force was too much or unfair, things can get complicated quick. That’s where this article comes in. Its main goal is to break down the 4th Amendment in a clear way, so you see how it shapes what “reasonable” force means. More importantly, it highlights why writing solid reports or giving clear statements right after a critical event is key. These documents help show if an officer’s actions lined up with the law, protecting everyone involved by painting an accurate picture of what went down. Without them, misunderstandings can lead to unfair outcomes in reviews or court. By getting the 4th Amendment basics, officers and the public can better grasp why good reporting and statement preparation isn’t just busywork—it’s a tool for fairness and accountability.

What It Is

The 4th Amendment says the government (like police) can’t search your stuff or take you (arrest you or use force to detain you) without a good reason. It protects your (citizens) privacy and freedom.

How It Works (Brief Overview)

• Searches: Police usually need a warrant (permission from a judge) to search your home, phone, or things. They can only search without a warrant if they have a strong reason, like seeing a crime happening.
• Seizures: This includes arrests and the associated use of force. Police can’t just grab you unless they have evidence you’re breaking the law. It must be a lawful detention based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause – including the immediate response to a perceived attack.
• Reasonableness: The amendment says any search or seizure (arrest) must be “reasonable.” That means police actions must make sense for the situation as reviewed through the application of the objective standard after the incident. This may include misinterpreted or incomplete information known to the officer at the time. (the officer doesn’t have to be right; they must only be reasonable in their beliefs as supported by the evidence).

“The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” (Justice Rehnquist)

Graham v. Connor and Police Force

In Graham v. Connor (1989), the Supreme Court said the 4th Amendment applies when police use force, like tackling or using a taser. The court checks if the force was “objectively reasonable.” This means a court must consider:

• What was the level of crime officers were dealing with.  (Severity of the Crime)
• Did the person seem threatening or dangerous? (Level of the Threat)
• Were they trying to run or fight or avoid arrest?

In general, the court looks at what a reasonable officer would do in that moment, not only what the officer was thinking; keeping in mind that an officer’s response to a threat will vary based on the officer’s individual experience, training and understood tactical “rules of thumb.” For example, if someone is swinging a bat at an officer, using force to stop them might be reasonable. But if someone is just standing there with a bat, using a lot of force might not be okay based on the context and expectations of the officer. there are numerous elements that must be considered – and it can’t be “I thought the subject was going to attack.”  You must articulate every aspect of why you believed that to be true in the moment.  If that cannot be supported by the evidence, a use of force will likely be found “unreasonable.” Statements by officers and reports regarding the incident are evidence in these cases.  If the articulable reasons why the force made sense to the officer in the moment are not present in the evidence, at the onset of the investigative process, the information required to assess the reasonableness is not there.

Why It Matters

The 4th Amendment is intended to keep police from overstepping. Graham v. Connor makes sure courts judge police actions fairly, based on the facts of the situation, not feelings or guesses, assumptions and what looks bad based on the evidence.

4th Amendment and Police Decision-Making: A Simple Breakdown

The 4th Amendment Explained

The 4th Amendment protects you from unfair searches or arrests by police. They can’t search your home, phone, or stuff without a good reason, like a judge’s permission (a warrant) or clear evidence you’re breaking the law (probable cause). It also covers arrests, which are like “seizing” a person. The rule is that police actions must be reasonable based on the situation.

In Graham v. Connor (1989), the Supreme Court said the 4th Amendment applies when police use force, like tackling someone or using a taser. Courts decide if the force was reasonable by looking at the facts: Was the person a threat? Were they fighting or running? Was the situation dangerous? They check what a typical officer would do, not what the officer was thinking.

Officer Decisions vs. Objective Review

Police often make split-second decisions under pressure. These choices come from:

• Perception: What they see or hear, like a sudden movement.
• Context: Where they are, like a dark alley or a crowded street.
• Expectations: What they think might happen based on training or past calls.
• Decisions and Actions: What they choose to do, like using force.
• Performance and Behavior: How they carry out their choice, like drawing a weapon.

But officers can’t make perfectly “objective” decisions in the moment. They’re stuck with what they believe right then, which might be based on incomplete, wrong, or confusing info. It’s like deciding to dodge something in a storm—you act on what you see, but you might not have the full picture.

“A reasonable but mistaken belief that the suspect is likely to fight back justifies using more force than is actually needed.”  Thomson v. Salt Lake County, 584 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2009)

This is why hindsight review matters. Courts or investigators look back to see if the officer’s belief was reasonable based on what they knew at the time, not what we learn later (like from videos or witnesses [see Justice Rehnquists quote above]).  The review asks: Did it make sense for the officer to think the situation was dangerous? If so, their force might be okay, even if the outcome was bad.  Keeping in mind, the goal is to understand why the decisions and actions of the officer made sense to them in the moment, not why they don’t make sense to the reviewer.  This is the anchor to the importance of a well-articulated account of the incident form the officers involved.

The Challenge of Hindsight Bias

Hindsight reviews are tricky because knowing the outcome can cloud judgment. Biases can creep in:

• Confirmation Bias: Focusing only on details that match your first impression (e.g., thinking an officer was wrong and ignoring evidence they acted reasonably).
• Salience Bias: Getting distracted by vivid details, like a dramatic video, and missing quieter facts that may change the context of the incident as experienced by the officer.
• Anchoring Bias: Letting the first thing you hear (like a news headline) shape how you view everything else.

These biases can lead to unfair judgments for officers and/or victims. To avoid this, reviews should use clear methods, like hiding outcome details at first or using diverse teams to judge fairly. This helps ensure the focus stays on whether the officer’s actions made sense in the moment, keeping the system balanced and just.

Why “Objectively Reasonable” Policies Can Be Misleading

Although police policy is focused on the objectively reasonable use of force by its officers, many police departments have policies that say something like: “Members of this Police Department will use only that force that is objectively reasonable.” While this sounds good, it’s often misleading and not the best fit for policy.

” Where an officer’s mistaken belief that a citizen poses an immediate and deadly threat is objectively reasonable under the circumstances, then that officer’s use of deadly force is not excessive or unreasonable.”  Simmons v. Bradshaw, 879 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 2018).

Here’s why: Officers face fast-moving, high-stress situations where they can’t step back and be fully objective. Their choices are subjective—they depend on what the officer perceives (like seeing a threat), the context (such as a chaotic scene, history, environment, other visual cues), and their expectations (based on training or what they’ve seen before). This mix shapes what we call the officer’s “reasonable belief” that a certain action, like using force, is needed right then.

Saying officers “will” or “shall” use objectively reasonable force sets an unrealistic bar. Objectivity means looking at things without personal bias, but in the heat of the moment, that’s impossible. Officers react based on their perceptions in the moment, which might be limited or potentially misinterpreted information due to the need to respond immediately to a perceived threat. Policies worded this way can make it seem like officers should somehow achieve perfect, unbiased decisions on the spot, which just isn’t how human brains work under pressure.

A potentially better approach for policies is to say – that when force is used, the officer’s decisions and behavior will be reviewed through the objective reasonableness standard established under Graham v. Connor. This standard weighs factors like the severity of the crime, if the person was a threat, and if they were resisting or trying to escape. It judges the actions after the fact, asking if they were reasonable from the viewpoint of a typical officer in that situation—not demanding objectivity in real time.

Though better than “thou shalt” mandates, even policies like this can cause confusion. Officers might see them as a step-by-step decision model, like a checklist to follow during a crisis. But that’s not what policies are intended for. They’re guidelines to set expectations and departmental standards, not a rigid checklist for making choices in unpredictable events. Treating them as a cognitive decision model could lead officers to a potential failure to decisively engage a threat, second-guess themselves too much, or misapply the rules, making things worse in critical moments. Instead, policies should guide training and reviews, helping ensure fairness without pretending to control every split-second call. Policies are not meant to be a measure of performance – they are intended to provide resilience and guidance in the training environment, and for the hindsight review and analysis of the incident.

The Reasonable Officer Standard

The reasonable officer standard is ill-defined in the courts. Notwithstanding, the heart of Graham v. Connor is the “reasonable officer” standard. This isn’t about the specific officer involved—it’s a hypothetical, typical police officer put in the same spot on the scene. Courts ask: What would this typical reasonable officer see, think, and do, given the facts and circumstances? The goal is to judge force use objectively, without hindsight or the officer’s personal feelings getting in the way.

“Since the objective test judges the officer through the lens of a reasonable officer, the subjective beliefs of the actual officer – whether they are good, or bad – are not relevant. Officer Connor, for example, may have honestly believed that Graham was a shoplifter; however, Connor’s personal beliefs are not relevant. The relevant question is whether a reasonable officer could believe that Graham was a shoplifter, based on the facts.”   [emphasis added] (Miller T. , 2020)

“Facts make force reasonable. The objective reasonableness test requires officers to rely on their senses – or what they saw, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched – and then articulate a factual basis for the seizure. Was the seizure reasonable – meaning reasonable at its inception, in the degree of force used, and in its duration?” (Miller T. , 2020)

But what makes an officer “reasonable” can vary a lot. Key factors include:

• Training and Experience: A reasonable officer draws on standard police training and past on-the-job know-how. For example, if an officer has handled similar calls before, that shapes what seems reasonable. Courts often look at department-wide training to set the baseline.
• Time and Tenure: Newer officers might react differently than veterans, but the standard focuses on general experience levels, not only one officer’s years on the job.
• Physical Abilities and Size: While the core standard is for a typical officer, some courts consider if the officer’s build or fitness affected their choices—like if a smaller officer faces a larger suspect. But it’s not the main focus; it’s more about what any trained officer would believe in the moment.  For instance, if deadly force was the response reasonably believed to be necessary by the officer involved, officers with different experiences and skill sets, strength and abilities, may respond to the need to use deadly force differently.  A different response is not deemed an unreasonable response based on the premise that the officer reasonably believed that deadly force was justified. It is important to keep in mind during the analysis of an officer’s decisions and actions what they believed and not so much what they would do – every officer is different.
• Skill Set and Mindset: Skills gained from specialized training matter, but mindset is judged objectively—no credit for fear or anger alone. This is why the expression “I feared for my life” cannot be the only reason to justify an officer’s decision, and the need to avoid descriptors and rely on well-articulated descriptions (see below; descriptors v. descriptions).  The hypothetical reasonable officer follows protocol under stress to the extent that is possible in the given circumstances and when feasible.  This element is why a deeply articulated description of why the fear was present is paramount and will vary between officers who sense threats in different ways based on skill set and mindset components.

Other things factor in, too, like the fast pace of events, (split-second decisions and time constraints) which allows for quick judgments without perfect information, either real or perceived. This creates a wide range: No two officers are exactly alike, so “reasonable” isn’t one-size-fits-all.

“Defining reasonableness has proven difficult. No constitutional provision, statute, rule, doctrine, or judicial decision has been shown to adequately formulate a simple test that accounts for the myriad of circumstances that police may encounter.” (Prewitt*, 2021)

Reasonable Suspicion, Probable Cause, and Use of Force in Detentions

When police interact with someone, the 4th Amendment sets rules for when they can detain or arrest and how much force they can use. Two key terms come up: reasonable suspicion and probable cause. These determine what an officer can do legally and how it ties to report writing when force is questioned.

• Reasonable Suspicion: This is a lower bar than probable cause. It means an officer has specific, reasonable facts to believe someone might be involved in a crime. For example, if someone is hanging around a store late at night, looking in windows, and matches a burglary suspect’s description, that’s enough to stop and question them (called a Terry stop). Officers can detain someone briefly to investigate, but they can only use minimal force—like grabbing an arm or ordering them to stay put—if needed to keep control or ensure safety. The force must match the situation and be reasonable under Graham v. Connor’s three prongs: the crime’s severity, immediate threat, and resistance or evasion.
• Probable Cause: This is a higher standard, meaning an officer has enough facts to believe a crime has been committed and the person did it. For instance, if the officer sees stolen goods in the person’s bag during the stop, that’s probable cause for an arrest. Arrests involve a greater “seizure” of the person, so officers can use more force if needed, like handcuffing or tackling, but it still must be reasonable based on the situation.

From Reasonable Suspicion to Probable Cause

Reasonable suspicion can turn into probable cause based on the subject’s behavior or new evidence during the stop. For example:

• If the person starts acting in ways that clearly point to a crime—like pulling out a weapon or admitting to one—that can escalate reasonable suspicion to probable cause.
• If they resist the detention (say, by shoving the officer or running), this can create a new crime, like battery on the officer, resisting or obstructing an investigation. This shifts the “severity of the crime” prong in Graham v. Connor, potentially justifying more force to control the situation.

When someone resists a lawful detention based on reasonable suspicion, they may be committing a new offense, like obstructing a police officer. This doesn’t automatically mean probable cause for a bigger crime, but it raises the stakes, especially from the officers perspective based on the overarching context of the encounter. For instance, if someone pulls away from an officer’s grip during a stop and starts running, the officer might now suspect a more serious crime (why flee?) or need to use force to stop them from escaping. The level of force allowed depends on how much resistance or threat the person shows—pushing back might justify a takedown, but not deadly force unless there’s a clear danger.

Can Officers Use Force in a Reasonable Suspicion Detention?

Yes, officers can use force to detain someone for an investigative stop based on reasonable suspicion, but it must be reasonable based on the officers reasonable beliefs regarding the behavior and tied to the situation. The Supreme Court in Terry v. United States (1968) allows officers to briefly detain and pat down someone for weapons if there’s reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and a safety concern. Force, like holding an arm or using a compliance hold, is okay if the person resists or poses a risk, but it must be appropriate and in response to the particular level of resistance, and/or any other articulable perceptions or contextual threat cues that may be present. If the person’s behavior escalates—like fighting or pulling a weapon—it can tip into probable cause for arrest, and the need to protect self and others, allowing more force, but still within Graham’s reasonableness limits.

Report Writing and Hindsight Review

When writing reports for these incidents, officers must avoid vague descriptors like “subject resisted” and instead describe the full picture: what they saw (e.g., “the subject jerked their arm away”), the context (e.g., “it was a dimly lit alley with recent robbery reports, the subjects demeanor, notable behavioral traits, pre-existing knowledge of the suspect, the reason for the contact, etc.”), their expectations (e.g., “I thought they might be reaching for a weapon based on training and the associated contextual issues”), and their actions (e.g., “I used a wrist lock to secure them”). This ties directly to Graham v. Connor’s hindsight review, which uses the three prongs (crime severity, threat, resistance) to check if the force was reasonable. Detailed reports show whether the officer’s belief and actions made sense at the time, even if the suspicion didn’t lead to an arrest or the person wasn’t armed. Clear descriptions help reviewers apply the objective standard fairly, reducing the risk of bias or misunderstanding in court or investigations.

Descriptors Versus Descriptions

Making a clear and concise explanation of the incident is imperative to get to the objective standard in police reports and statements, there’s a big difference between using descriptors and giving full descriptions—and it matters a lot in today’s world of law enforcement scrutiny. A descriptor is like a shortcut label for what happened. For example, saying “the subject made a furtive movement” or “I used a department-approved takedown method” sums up an action but doesn’t explain the details. These are handy for quick notes, but they leave out the real story of the officer’s experience.

The problem with descriptors is they create a gap. They tell what happened on the surface but skip the why—the deeper reasons behind the choices. In a time when every police action can face close review, reports need to focus on clear, full descriptions. This means spelling out exactly what the officer went through, step by step.

To do this right, avoid those shortcut descriptors and instead describe:

• What was perceived: What did you see, hear, or sense? Instead of “furtive movement,” say “I saw the subject’s right hand quickly reach toward their waistband, out of my direct view.” This leads into,
• The context: Where and how did this happen? Was it at night in a high-crime area, or during a routine stop? Context sets the scene and shows why something felt off. This leads to,
• Expectations developed: Based on what you perceived and the context, what did you expect next? If training taught you that waistband reaches often mean a weapon, mention that—it shows your thinking. Leading to the,
• Decisions and actions: What choices did you make, and why? Link them back to the info you had, like deciding to use a takedown because you feared for safety.

All this flows from the officer’s cognitive process—the way the brain handles info in a fast, high-stakes setting where decisions have big consequences. Time is short, stress is high, and info might be spotty, so reports should capture that raw experience. Full descriptions help reviewers understand the reasonable belief behind the actions, closing that gap and making the case stronger under standards like Graham v. Connor. In short, ditching descriptors for detailed descriptions builds trust, reduces confusion, and supports fair outcomes.

Cases building on Graham v. Connor (called progeny cases) make this clearer, especially for deadly force. Officers don’t have to be right about a threat—they just need a reasonable belief it exists. For instance, if an officer mistakes a phone for a gun but has solid reasons to think it’s a weapon (like the angle or movement within the context of the event), their use of deadly force can still be okay. Lower courts, have said: “Even if the officer is wrong, if his or her mistake is reasonable, based on the articulated perceptions, context, and expectation, then the use of force is not excessive.” (paraphrased from multiple cases) This safeguards officers from the expectation of perfect foresight while holding them to smart, trained decisions based on the Common Thread Theory; Perception, Context, Expectations, Decisions-actions, Performance-Behavior.

This is the very component of the objective standard that puts an added emphasis on the need to deeply articulate the officer’s perspective, context, expectations, decisions-actions, and performance and behavior.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force