Evidence, reports and courtroom testimony
Crime-scene protection, collection and chain of custody, forensic and digital evidence, disclosure duties, the Confrontation Clause, probable-cause affidavits, report and use-of-force writing, body-camera footage, and truthful testimony under cross-examination (SAPC ch. 37, 37C, 38 and 39).
Required for Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Class F
The exam draws 30 questions from a bank of 59. You have 45 minutes, and you need 80% to pass. Questions apply the law to situations. To prepare, read this guide alongside the cited sections of the San Andreas codes, the 2026 Law Enforcement Reform Package and the federal authorities below. The U.S. Constitution binds every San Andreas officer. Supreme Court decisions are binding; federal circuit decisions are accepted authority, and where circuits differ the academy teaches the rule that protects rights more.
The first officer at a scene has four jobs, in order: make it safe, render aid as soon as it is safe to do so, secure the scene, and preserve evidence and witnesses. Life comes before evidence; if moving a victim or an item is necessary to save someone, do it and document exactly what was moved and why. Then set a perimeter larger than you think you need. Start a scene log recording everyone who enters and leaves, when and why, and keep out everyone without a task, including curious officers and supervisors. Entering an area cordoned off as an active crime scene without authorization is SAPC §30.21, and a person who knows a crime has been committed and intentionally removes, alters or destroys evidence at a scene under investigation commits §38.30. Identify and separate witnesses, note vehicles and people leaving, and protect fragile evidence such as footwear impressions in the dust of a Sandy Shores driveway, or blood in the rain, by covering it. Remember the Fourth Amendment does not stop at the tape. An emergency justifies entering a home to aid someone or stop a threat (Brigham City v. Stuart; Michigan v. Fisher), but the authority lasts only as long as the emergency; once it ends, a full search of the home needs a warrant, consent or another exception.
Document before you collect. Photograph each item where it lies with overall, mid-range and close-up views, using a scale in the close-ups, and record its position in notes and a sketch. Collect the most fragile and transient evidence first. Wear gloves and change them between items. Package each item separately so that items cannot transfer trace evidence to each other; air-dry wet biological evidence and package it in paper rather than sealed plastic, which traps moisture and degrades DNA. Record the condition of a firearm, including the position of each fired and unfired cartridge, before making it safe. Some evidence on a person is evanescent: with probable cause, officers may take limited steps to preserve it, such as fingernail scrapings (Cupp v. Murphy). A blood draw is a search; it is reasonable with probable cause and exigency (Schmerber v. California), the natural dissipation of alcohol is not a per se exigency (Missouri v. McNeely), and a breath test, but not a blood test, may be required incident to a drunk-driving arrest (Birchfield v. North Dakota). Taking a DNA swab at booking for a serious offense, supported by probable cause, is a reasonable search (Maryland v. King).
Chain of custody is the documented history of an item from the moment it is found until it is offered in court. Seal each package with tape, initial and date across the seal, and label it with the case number, item description, where and when it was found and by whom. Log every transfer: who handed it over, who received it, when and why. Book evidence into the evidence room before the end of shift under agency procedure; an item left in a desk drawer or a patrol car overnight creates a gap the defence will exploit. A gap must be documented honestly, never papered over; a false entry in a property log is Tampering with a Government Record (SAPC §39.02). Chapter 37C protects the system: entering an evidence room without authorization or handling evidence outside chain-of-custody protocol is §37C.02; knowingly destroying, contaminating or tampering with DNA or forensic evidence relevant to an investigation is §37C.03; knowingly placing evidence to falsely implicate someone is Planting Evidence (§37C.04), a 2nd Degree Felony; and an analyst who fabricates or misrepresents forensic results commits §37C.01. Anyone who, knowing an investigation is pending, destroys or conceals a thing to impair its availability commits Tampering with Evidence (§38.19). In a joint investigation the agreement identifies who keeps evidence custody (Act VII §7.08), and that must be settled before anyone collects anything.
Forensic results are only as good as the evidence submitted and the analyst who can explain them. Forensic lab certificates are testimonial, so the analyst must be available for cross-examination (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts); a lab report cannot simply be read to a jury in place of a witness. Submit evidence with a clear request describing what you want examined and why, and keep a record of what was sent and when. Blood and other physical evidence are not testimonial for Fifth Amendment purposes (Schmerber), so a suspect has no privilege to refuse to provide them once lawful authority exists, although taking them is still a search. Fingerprints, DNA, firearms comparisons and digital forensics each have limits, and an officer must not overstate them in a report or on the stand: a fingerprint 'consistent with' the suspect, or a cartridge from 'the same type' of gun, is not an identification. Results that exclude the suspect are as important as results that include him and must be reported in the same way. Never ask an analyst to reach a particular result, and never describe a pending test in a report as though it were complete.
Digital evidence carries the strongest privacy protection. Police generally need a warrant to search the digital contents of a phone seized incident to arrest (Riley v. California). The proper course is to seize and secure the phone when you have lawful grounds, protect it from remote wiping under agency procedure, document its condition and get a warrant before looking inside; consent from the owner is the other route. Obtaining historical cell-site location records generally requires a warrant (Carpenter v. United States). Attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle and monitoring it is a search (United States v. Jones); a private person who secretly tracks another person's vehicle commits SAPC §16B.02, and an officer who does it without a warrant or consent commits a Fourth Amendment violation. Using sense-enhancing technology not in general public use to learn details inside a home is a search (Kyllo v. United States). Business surveillance video and footage that a witness offers voluntarily can usually be obtained by consent, but copy it promptly, because many systems overwrite within days, and record who provided it, from which system, and the system's time offset from actual time.
Due process forbids the prosecution to suppress evidence favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment (Brady v. Maryland). Favorable evidence includes anything that undermines a witness's credibility, including promises or benefits given to a witness or informant (Giglio v. United States). The prosecution is responsible for favorable evidence known to anyone acting on its behalf, including police (Kyles v. Whitley), so evidence an officer knows about but never reports is treated as suppressed by the state. That makes the officer the first link in disclosure. Document and forward everything: a witness who picked a filler, store video showing the arrestee elsewhere, a recantation, an informant's payment, a lab result that excludes the suspect, a prior inconsistent statement, and your own errors. Failing to preserve potentially useful evidence violates due process only when police act in bad faith (Arizona v. Youngblood), but that is a floor for constitutional claims, not a standard to aim at; evidence policy requires preservation, and destroying evidence knowing an investigation is pending is a crime (SAPC §38.19). Officers' own credibility is part of disclosure: a sustained finding of dishonesty is impeachment material the prosecutor must know about.
The Sixth Amendment gives the accused the right to confront the witnesses against him (U.S. Const. amend. VI). Testimonial statements of an absent witness are admissible only if the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior chance to cross-examine (Crawford v. Washington). Statements made to resolve an ongoing emergency, such as most 911 calls, are not testimonial; statements describing past events for prosecution are (Davis v. Washington). A wounded victim's answers to officers about an armed shooter still at large were for an ongoing emergency and not testimonial (Michigan v. Bryant). This shapes how officers build cases, especially in family violence where victims often do not testify. Preserve the 911 recording and the body-camera footage of the first moments, when the officer is asking what is happening and whether anyone is armed or hurt. Photograph injuries and the scene, collect medical records through proper process, identify independent witnesses, and document the suspect's own statements. A formal, structured statement taken after the scene is calm is valuable, but it is testimonial and usually cannot replace the victim's live testimony. Build the case so it can stand on evidence that does not depend on a single witness appearing.
A warrant affidavit must show probable cause: a fair probability, judged on the totality of the circumstances, that evidence will be found or that the person committed the offense, including a tip's veracity, reliability and basis of knowledge (Illinois v. Gates). State facts, not conclusions: what each source saw or heard, how the source knows it, how you corroborated it, and when it happened, so the judge can judge freshness. A warrant must particularly describe the place and the items to be seized, and a warrant that fails to describe the items is invalid on its face even if the application did (Groh v. Ramirez). A warrant fails if the affiant knowingly or recklessly included a false statement necessary to probable cause (Franks v. Delaware); the academy treats a deliberate or reckless omission of material facts, such as an informant's payments or a contradicting witness, the same way. An officer who applies for a warrant is not immune if a reasonably well-trained officer would know the affidavit failed to show probable cause (Malley v. Briggs), and the good-faith exception does not save a warrant built on a false or plainly lacking affidavit (United States v. Leon). A knowingly false sworn statement is §37.17 even if never filed, and fabricating probable cause in a report, arrest affidavit or complaint is §38.81 for an officer.
A report separates what you observed from what you concluded and attributes every fact to its source. Write what you saw, heard and smelled; label opinions as opinions and give their basis. Answer who, what, when, where, how and, where known, why. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are judged on the totality of the circumstances, including an officer's trained inferences (United States v. Cortez), and factors each consistent with innocence can together amount to reasonable suspicion (United States v. Sokolow), so the report must list each fact and explain the inference you drew from it. Boilerplate fails this test. 'Furtive movements' says nothing; 'he leaned forward and pushed something under the driver's seat as I approached' says something. Presence in a high-crime area alone does not support a stop, although unprovoked headlong flight in such an area can contribute (Illinois v. Wardlow). Document every element of each offense charged, including the mental state, because the state must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt (In re Winship). Include facts that cut against your conclusion. Write your own account; never copy another officer's narrative. Correct a filed report only with a dated supplement that says what changed and why; altering it is §39.02 and a materially false report by an officer is §38.81.
A use-of-force narrative must let a reader judge objective reasonableness from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, weighing the severity of the crime, the immediate threat and any active resistance or flight (Graham v. Connor). Courts look at the totality of the circumstances, including events before the moment of threat, and may not confine review to the final seconds (Barnes v. Felix), so describe the whole encounter: the call, what you knew, how you approached, what you said, the subject's words and actions, your perception of the threat and why, the warnings given, the options you considered, the force you used and each application of it, its effect, and when you stopped. Replace labels with facts. 'The subject became combative' is a conclusion; 'he pulled his arm free, turned toward me with his fist clenched and swung at my face' is a fact. Document de-escalation, the time a restrained person spent prone and any weight on the back, because holding a restrained person prone with pressure on the back must be judged with attention to positional asphyxia and how long the pressure lasted (Lombardo v. City of St. Louis). Record the aid you rendered and when. Leaving out force you used or saw is a materially false report (SAPC §38.81) and force beyond what is reasonably necessary is §39.01.
Body-worn camera footage is evidence and a government record. Activate the camera as policy requires and before the encounter begins where you can, narrate key facts the camera cannot capture, and never mute, cover or stop recording to avoid capturing an official act. Knowingly disabling, removing, covering or tampering with an officer's camera, without lawful authority and with intent to prevent recording of an official action, is SAPC §38.101. Deleting or altering footage knowing an investigation is pending is Tampering with Evidence (§38.19), and impairing a genuine government record is §39.02. Tag and categorise footage accurately so it is retained for the right period, and note in your report that it exists. Footage is subject to disclosure like any other evidence (Brady; Kyles), including footage that helps the defence or contradicts your report. Whether you may watch your footage before writing your report depends on agency policy; if you watched it, say so, and either way write what you perceived and remember. The camera's view is not your view: it may see more or less than you did, from a different angle, without your sense of distance, sound or touch. Where your memory and the footage differ, say so honestly in a supplement rather than quietly changing your account.
Testimony is the final test of an investigation. Prepare by reviewing your report, notes, footage and the evidence log, and meet the prosecutor before trial. On the stand, listen to the whole question, pause, answer only what was asked, and speak to the jury in plain language without jargon. Separate what you saw from what you were told. Say 'I don't recall' when that is true, and if a document would help, ask to refresh your memory from it; then answer from your refreshed memory. Concede what is true, including mistakes and what you did not do; an officer who admits an honest error keeps credibility, and one who fights every point loses it. Expect cross-examination to probe omissions from your report, inconsistencies between your report, your footage and your testimony, bias, and the basis for your stop or search. Do not argue, guess, exaggerate or volunteer opinions you are not qualified to give. Perjury (SAPC §37.13) is a false statement under oath made with intent to deceive; an honest mistake is not perjury. A false statement under oath in an official proceeding that is material, meaning it could have affected the outcome, is Aggravated Perjury (§37.14), a 3rd Degree Felony. Threatening a witness to change testimony is Witness Intimidation (§38.21), and trying to influence testimony by any means is Witness Tampering (§38.22).
Constitution and case law
The federal authorities this module's questions rely on, and the rule the academy takes from each.
Ready to sit it? Open your character's academy file from the COLE page.