Police reports are beneficial to the auto accident victim, but are not always the best source of evidence. Officers are typically on the scene after the accident and not an eyewitness. Depending upon their skill and training, some officers are very adept at getting the accurate information from witnesses, collecting physical evidence at the auto accident scene, and generating a report of the accident.

However, many well-intentioned officers are not adept at these tasks when investigating an automobile collision. In the years that our attorneys have been practicing in Orange County, California, numerous instances of inaccurate reporting have been seen. We will summarize the typical errors seen in traffic accident reports.

       1.   Police officers, when investigating traffic accidents, have a first duty of safety. Therefore, interviewing of witnesses does not happen until after the scene is secure and emergency personnel are dispatched. During this time, many auto accident witnesses leave or talk to the parties, corrupting their versions of the events. Additionally, the parties to the auto accident "get their stories straight," sometimes completely changing their version prior to the officer talking to them. "I do not know" is changed to, "I had the green light" is a typical example. Therefore, eyewitness accounts may sometimes be missing or corrupted by time. See our link Witness Bias for more on this subject.

       2.   Police officers have their own set of biases and motives. Officers may consider a youthful driver at fault because of his or her youth and not the facts of the accident. Officers tend to emphasize speed even if it is 1 to 5 MPH over the speed limit and with the flow of traffic. Officers perceive those persons who may have any alcohol on their breath, even a trace amount from a glass of wine at dinner, are impaired and the cause of an accident. In one case handled by our attorneys, an abandoned car was stationed in the fast lane of a freeway at night with no emergency lights turned on. The person had run out of gas. When the client hit the car, the officer suggested that the driver must have been impaired to not see the car. In that case, the officer ignored the other four cars that had struck the abandoned and dark car previously and were stopped further up the road, being interviewed by an officer from another jurisdiction. See Police Officer Bias for more information on this subject.

       3.   Police officers are in a hurry to prepare reports and sometimes mix up factual evidence. Also, there are frequent calculation errors of speed or time and distance. Officers will also make measurement errors and those measurement errors will then lead to a wrong conclusion as to liability. For further information on officer liability see Liability of an Officer for Errors in Investigation or Losing Information.

       4.   Officers will typically mark that people are uninjured at the scene, if they refuse emergency assistance and have no obvious signs of injury. Many auto accident participants are never asked if they are feeling pain or injury, or do not want to appear to be complaining for fear that they will be accused of "making a case." Officers do not assure victims at the scene that they should be candid about their injuries. These reports are used against auto accident victims later in the handling of their case.

Police reports have a use, but they are one tool of many to a qualified auto accident attorney conducting an investigation into an auto accident. The reports should not be relied upon as the sole proof of an auto accident case where additional evidence and statements can be collected. See Interviewing an Auto Accident Witness.

If you are the victim of an auto accident, let our attorneys consult with you for free. Call us from anywhere in California or Orange County 1-888-752-7474 or Contact Us Online.