Why the Words in a Police Report Matter More Than You Think

Stephen King says it in On Writing: the road to hell is paved with adverbs. Elmore Leonard made a career out of sentences that don’t reach for effect, they just land. Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style is a sustained argument against overdoing it. The best writers writing about writing all agree: adjectives and adverbs are the mark of someone who doesn’t trust their verbs.

The police have a different book.

Police Language Is Designed to Make You Sound Guilty

The Subway Sandwich Case and the Power of Police Narrative

By now you may have heard about Sean Dunn, the DOJ paralegal who became a minor legend last fall for throwing his Subway sandwich at a CBP agent during the early D.C. occupation. The grand jury — presented with the terrifying specter of a man hurling bread at a federal officer — issued a no bill. Every lawyer in America immediately deployed the “indict a ham sandwich” line. The nation groaned. Good times.

The Trump DOJ, however, undeterred by the indignity of losing a sandwich case to a grand jury, pushed forward with a misdemeanor charge. It went to trial.

To review: a hundred different cameras of all types caught Dunn, a 37-year-old Air Force veteran and, at the time, Justice Department employee, as he screamed at federal officers stationed in a popular nightlife corridor and then tossed a Subway footlong at a Customs and Border Protection agent, hitting him squarely in the chest and … well, actually, that was it. Dunn ran, was identified, offered to turn himself in several times over the coming days but was turned down. A pre-dawn SWAT raid on his home perp-walked him into the news.

The prosecution’s strategy, per the Huffington Post reporter covering the trial, was to “litter the proceedings with deadly-sounding jargon.” That’s how a thrown Subway footlong becomes something scary.

How Police Reports Turn Ordinary Conduct Into Threatening Behavior

It starts with the police report. The verb “threw” doesn’t carry any weight. “Hurled” is threatening. The sub “contacted” the vest sounds dull. “Kind of exploded on my vest” is much more visual. The reports don’t lie — police can only lie in interrogations — but they are written to enhance and escalate the truth. To find the words that are technically defensible and emotionally nuclear.

This is not limited to sandwich cases. It runs through ordinary police reports constantly, invisibly, and by design:

“Moved toward me” becomes “advanced aggressively.”

“Spoke loudly” becomes “shouted in a threatening manner.”

“Looked at me” becomes “fixed me with a hard stare.”

“Smelled of alcohol” becomes “reeked of intoxicants.”

A car doesn’t change lanes. It “swerves.” A hand doesn’t move. It “lunges.” A glance is “aggressive.”

The adjectives are doing legal work. They are not describing what the officer saw — they are pre-loading the jury’s interpretation of what the officer saw.

How Police Officers Are Trained to Testify in Court

Police language coaching doesn’t stop at the report. Officers are trained on courtroom demeanor, phrasing, and consistency. They are instructed on how to avoid damaging admissions, how to navigate cross-examination, and how to align their testimony with report narratives without appearing rehearsed. They are reminded repeatedly that their credibility affects outcomes, that hesitation looks like uncertainty, and that certainty benefits the case.

That coaching begins early. It shapes how reports are written, how memory is framed, and how events are later recalled. Over time, this conditioning blends perception and presentation into a single institutional voice that sounds natural to juries and authoritative to judges.

And because police testimony carries built-in credibility, the system rarely interrogates how that credibility is manufactured.

Why the Subway Wrapper Became the Most Important Evidence

Back to the sandwich. The CBP officer added, apparently on his own, that he could “smell the onions and mustard.” That detail did most of the damage — not to the defendant, but to the officer.

The defense shared a photograph of the sandwich on the sidewalk in front of the police line. Completely intact. The Subway wrapper, it turned out, was the real hero of the day. Confronted by Subway’s superior wrapping job, the officer said he could not positively identify that particular footlong as the one that had “exploded” on his bulletproof vest.

The sandwich case is funny because the gap between the language and the reality was visible to everyone in the room, including, apparently, the jury. That gap is not always visible. In most cases, there’s no photograph of the intact footlong sitting there as a rebuttal. The language just sits there, authoritative and dressed up, and the jury takes it at face value because police officers sound credible, because they are practiced at sounding credible, and because the coaching is invisible.

How Defense Attorneys Challenge Police Language in Criminal Cases

The defense attorney’s job — our job — is to be a very aggressive editor. What does “hurled” establish that “threw” does not? What is the legal difference between “advanced toward” and “lunged”? What did you write in your notes at the scene, before the prep sessions? When did this event become an explosion?

An experienced defense attorney knows what plain language looks like. And when the language stops being plain, they know exactly what to ask next.

Knauss Law does not treat police testimony as neutral recollection. It treats it as a curated narrative — shaped by training, habit, and institutional interest — and the job of the defense is to peel back that performance layer, expose the mechanics behind it, and return the testimony to what it actually is: a version, not the truth.

That distinction often decides credibility. And credibility often decides cases.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do police reports use words like “aggressive” or “lunged”?
Those words shape how a judge or jury interprets conduct before seeing any evidence themselves. Descriptive language in reports can influence whether ordinary behavior sounds threatening, reckless, or dangerous.
Can wording in a police report affect the outcome of a criminal case?
Yes. Police reports often frame the narrative prosecutors rely on when deciding charges, plea offers, and trial strategy. The language used can influence credibility and how events are perceived in court.
Are police officers trained on how to testify in court?
Yes. Officers receive training on courtroom presentation, report consistency, and handling cross-examination. That training is designed to strengthen credibility and avoid testimony that could weaken the prosecution’s case.
Why is it important to review police reports carefully after an arrest?
Police reports can contain exaggerations, loaded descriptions, or assumptions presented as fact. Early review by a defense attorney can identify inconsistencies between the report, body camera footage, witness statements, and physical evidence.
How does a criminal defense attorney challenge police testimony?
A defense attorney examines the exact language used, compares it to evidence and recordings, and questions whether the wording reflects observation or interpretation. Often the key issue is not what happened, but how it was described.

Charged in Washington State? The Police Report Is Already Shaping Your Case

If you’re facing criminal charges in Washington State, the language in the police report about your case matters more than you may realize. At Knauss Law, we know how to read it, challenge it, and take it apart in court.

Contact Knauss Law today for a consultation. The earlier you have experienced counsel reviewing what was written about you, the better positioned you are to fight it.

Matthew Knauss is a criminal defense attorney in Washington State. He represents clients facing assault, DUI, domestic violence, and related charges throughout the Greater Seattle area.