SAFVIC on the Scene

“Did Not Appear Afraid”: What Happens Between the Interview and the Report?

By Kami D. Scheer, DCJ, MBA

An officer responds to a family violence call. The person who reported the assault describes being threatened and shoved. Before the officer leaves, that person says they do not want the suspect arrested and asks whether their partner will be allowed back home.

Later, the officer writes: “Victim was uncooperative and did not appear afraid of the suspect.”

That sentence may seem like a summary. It is also a conclusion. The person’s words and requests are facts the officer can document. Whether the person was afraid, and what their request means, requires more information.

Where a case can quietly change

The space between what someone said, what an officer understood, and what the report tells the next reader is where a case can change direction without anyone intending it to.

A prosecutor may read uncooperative as a sign that the case cannot move forward. A defense attorney may use did not appear afraid to challenge the account. A supervisor may see no reason for further follow-up. A later investigator may never ask a question the report made it seem the officer had already answered.

None of these readers were in the room. They have only what we chose to record.

A report carries more than facts

Investigators make judgments throughout a case. They decide what to ask, which evidence to seek, and what to do next. Judgment is necessary. The challenge is letting someone else see where the facts end and an interpretation begins.

Consider the phrase did not appear afraid. What did the officer observe? A level voice? No visible tears? A question about where the partner would sleep? Those observations may belong in a report. None, on its own, establishes how the person felt.

The same issue arises in sexual assault investigations. A report might say the person “continued communicating with the suspect after the assault.” That may be accurate and relevant. But if the report stops there, readers may supply their own explanation for the contact. What did the messages say? Who initiated them? What did the person say about why the contact continued? What other evidence might help explain it?

The task is not to decide in advance what a significant detail means. It is to find out.

The five-question pause

When a circumstance seems significant, pause and work through five questions before writing a conclusion:

1. What do I know?
2. What am I inferring?
3. What else could explain this?
4. What can I do to test those explanations?
5. How will I document what I learned and what remains unknown?

These questions work in both family violence and sexual assault cases. A delayed report, continued contact, reluctance to participate, or an account given in pieces may raise legitimate investigative questions. None answers those questions by itself.

If a person says they do not want the suspect arrested after a family violence incident, the officer can document the statement and ask what concerns are behind it. The answer might identify a safety concern, a practical need, or something else entirely. The officer can also document injuries, statements, the scene, witnesses, and available recordings. The person’s wishes are important to record and understand; they do not replace the work of investigating the reported offense.

Let the reader see the difference

The following examples are fictional illustrations. They use complainant; officers should follow their agency’s terminology.

Here’s a family-violence report written as a bare conclusion:

“Victim was uncooperative and did not appear afraid of the suspect.”

And here’s the same call, written as an observation-based account:

“The complainant stated they did not want the suspect arrested and asked whether the suspect could return to the residence tonight. When I asked about that request, the complainant stated that the suspect pays the rent and that they were worried about losing the apartment. I asked whether the complainant felt safe staying at the residence tonight. The complainant stated that they planned to stay with their sister but were concerned about what would happen if the suspect came back to the residence later in the week. The complainant spoke in a level voice and answered my questions directly. I photographed a bruise on the complainant’s left upper arm and an overturned lamp in the living room. A neighbor reported hearing shouting at approximately 9:40 p.m.; the neighbor’s account is summarized below.”

The revised passage records the complainant’s concern, an immediate safety question, and the officer’s observations. It does not ask the next reader to infer that a level voice means an absence of fear.

The same problem shows up in sexual assault reports, where an unexamined conclusion can carry even higher stakes. Here’s a bare conclusion:

“Victim continued communicating with the suspect after the assault.”

And here’s the same fact, written as an observation-based account:

“The complainant provided screenshots showing 14 text messages exchanged with the suspect between August 27 and September 12. The complainant sent five messages, and the suspect sent nine. The first message in the screenshots was sent by the suspect. The screenshots are attached to this report. When asked about the contact, the complainant stated, ‘I just wanted to act normal so he wouldn’t come back.’ The provided screenshots do not show messages exchanged before August 27. I will seek the complete message thread to determine whether the screenshots provide the full context.”

The revised passage gives the reader the messages’ scope, who sent the first message shown, the complainant’s explanation, a limit on the available evidence, and a next investigative step. It does not assume the contact proves or disproves the allegation.

Between the two examples, the pattern is the same: a bare conclusion tells the reader what to think, while an observation-based account gives them what they need to think it through themselves. That’s what carries the weight, not the tone. Both versions give a supervisor, prosecutor, or later investigator a way to follow the officer’s reasoning, and both make unanswered questions visible so someone can follow up.

“I don’t have time for this”

The more precise reports are longer. Officers also have real limits on their time, particularly when calls are waiting.

Sometimes the difference begins with one additional question and a few sentences that separate observation from inference. Other times, the answer points to further investigative work. Either way, a brief conclusion that hides an unanswered question does not save time for the people who must later review or continue the case.

Conclude only as far as evidence permits

Professional neutrality does not require an officer to ignore a difficult fact. It requires treating that fact as something to understand and investigate before giving it more weight than the evidence supports.

A strong report can say what supports an allegation, what appears to challenge it, what steps addressed those issues, and what remains unresolved. It can explain a decision without pretending every question has been answered.

In sexual assault and family violence cases, the words we choose shape how others understand both the person who reported harm and the work we did in response. We owe every reader a record they can examine, and every person involved an investigation whose conclusions can be traced to evidence.

Try this on your next report: find one unsupported conclusion, such as uncooperative, not credible, or seemed fine, and replace it with what you actually saw, heard, and did. If the evidence supports a conclusion, show the reader how you reached it.

Begin without deciding. Investigate without discounting. Conclude only as far as the evidence permits.

BLOG ARCHIVES:
Blog 1
Blog 2
Blog 3
Blog 4
Blog 5
Blog 6