By NinetySix Technologies LLC
A traffic stop that felt routine in the moment can become difficult to describe months later. By the time a hearing is scheduled, the officer may have handled hundreds of similar stops. The goal of preparation is not to recreate a perfect memory. It is to identify what the officer actually remembers, what the contemporaneous record shows and where the limits are.
The following guide is designed for an officer preparing to testify about a traffic stop after the details are no longer fresh. It should be used with agency policy, applicable law and guidance from the prosecutor handling the case. The scenarios are composites, not instructions for any particular jurisdiction.
1. What should I review before court?
Start with the primary record and build outward. Review the citation or charging document, your original report, contemporaneous notes, dispatch or CAD information, relevant photographs and the properly retained body-worn camera recording. Confirm basic facts — date, time, location, vehicle, reason for the stop, observations supporting enforcement action and the sequence of key events. Check the court notice and any agency-specific preparation requirements.
Use a simple source sheet as you review. For each important fact, note whether it comes from independent memory, the report, notes, video, dispatch information or another identified record. Do not silently blend them.
Example: You independently remember that the driver appeared unusually nervous, but the exact wording of the roadside explanation comes from your recording. Separate those two facts during preparation. The first is a present recollection; the second is information confirmed by the recording.
2. How do I distinguish memory from notes or video?
Before opening the report or video — if agency policy permits — pause and write down what you presently recall. Keep it brief. Then review the records and mark what they refresh or add. This creates a cleaner boundary between what was already in mind and what came from later review.
Video is powerful evidence, but it is not the officer’s eyesight or attention. A body-worn camera may face a different direction, miss something at the edge of the scene, flatten distance or record audio the officer did not consciously process. Research also suggests that later video review can update a person’s memory of an event. The practical response is source transparency, not treating either memory or video as perfect.
Example: After viewing the recording, you can state that it shows the driver reaching toward the center console. If you do not independently remember the precise movement, say that the recording shows it rather than presenting the detail as an unaided memory.
3. What should I say when I honestly do not remember?
Say so plainly. “I do not independently remember that detail” is more credible than filling a gap with what usually happens on similar stops. If an approved record refreshes your recollection, explain which record you reviewed and what, if anything, you now remember. If it does not refresh your memory, do not claim that it did.
Avoid phrases that make routine practice sound like a specific memory. “My standard practice is…" and “I remember doing…" are different statements. Use the one that is accurate.
Example: You cannot recall whether the driver handed over the license before or after being asked about the vehicle registration. The sequence is not clear from your memory. State that limitation. If the order is visible on the recording, identify the video as the source for the sequence.
4. How do I explain something the camera did not capture?
Describe the camera’s limits in concrete terms. Explain where you were looking, where the camera was positioned and why the relevant observation may fall outside its view. Do not imply that missing footage proves the observation happened; explain the observation itself and the limitation of the recording.
Example: While standing near the driver’s window, you saw the driver glance repeatedly toward the passenger-side floorboard. The camera was centered on the door frame and did not capture the driver’s eyes. Explain your position and line of sight, then acknowledge what the video does and does not show.
5. What can make an officer appear less credible?
Credibility problems often begin with overstatement rather than the underlying evidence. Common preparation mistakes include:
- Speaking with certainty about a detail that appears only in a report or recording.
- Using “always” or “never” when describing routine practice.
- Trying to reconcile every difference between memory and video instead of acknowledging the difference.
- Watching only selected clips and missing context before or after the event.
- Adding a new explanation for the first time without identifying why it was absent from the contemporaneous report.
- Arguing with the questioner or answering beyond the question asked.
Example: Your report says the vehicle “drifted within its lane,” while the citation narrative says it crossed the fog line. Do not smooth over the distinction. Review the available sources, identify which wording each contains and be prepared to explain the discrepancy accurately.
6. How should I treat an AI-generated report or summary?
Treat AI-generated text as a draft aid, not as evidence and not as memory. Generative systems can omit details, merge speakers, misstate chronology or produce confident language unsupported by the source material. NIST identifies this type of confidently false output as “confabulation.”
Follow agency policy on approved tools, disclosure, data handling and retention. Verify every material statement against the primary record. Preserve the original notes, recording and human-authored report. Do not let an AI summary become the only version reviewed before testimony, and do not adopt its phrasing as though it were your own recollection.
Example: An AI summary states that the driver “admitted speeding,” but the recording contains only “I was keeping up with traffic.” The summary is inaccurate. Correct the draft, rely on the recording for the actual words and be prepared to identify which source you reviewed.
A five-minute final check
- Can I separate what I remember from what each record shows?
- Have I reviewed the complete relevant recording, not only a clip?
- Can I identify any important discrepancy without minimizing it?
- Am I prepared to say “I do not remember” when that is the truthful answer?
- Did I verify any AI-assisted text against the primary evidence and agency policy?
Accurate testimony does not require a flawless memory. It requires disciplined preparation, clear sourcing and candor about what is remembered, what is documented and what remains unknown.
Sources and further reading
- U.S. Department of Justice. Officer Review of Body-Worn Camera Recordings After an Incident Involving the Use of Force.
- Dawes et al. Law and (rec)order: Updating memory for criminal events with body-worn cameras.” PLOS ONE.
- National Institute of Standards and Technology. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile.
- Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 612, Writing Used to Refresh a Witness’s Memory.
About the author
This article was contributed by NinetySix Technologies LLC. ninetysix.app
