9.2 Plain Language Guidelines & Redundancy Elimination in Incident Reporting

9.2 Plain Language Guidelines & Redundancy Elimination in Incident Reporting

Quick Summary: In modern law enforcement, professional writing is defined by clarity, directness, and conciseness—not by ornate bureaucratic vocabulary or convoluted sentence architecture. The Government of Canada, through the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), mandates plain language principles across all federal departments. For Border Services Officers, plain language writing is both an administrative efficiency tool and an evidentiary safeguard. Clear, active-voice incident reports leave no ambiguity regarding officer actions, traveler statements, or statutory compliance, ensuring records withstand rigorous judicial scrutiny in court.

---

The Federal Mandate for Plain Language in Enforcement Documentation

For decades, public sector writing was plagued by "bureaucratese"—a dense, passive, and jargon-laden style that obscured meaning behind inflated terminology. To eliminate administrative opacity, the Government of Canada established modern communications policies and directives requiring public servants to write in plain language.

In the context of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), plain language does not mean oversimplifying legal concepts or omitting essential technical data. Rather, it means presenting complex statutory and factual information so clearly that the intended audience can:

1. Find what they need quickly.
2. Understand the factual narrative on the first reading.
3. Use the information to make defensible legal, regulatory, or administrative determinations.

The Audience Spectrum for CBSA Incident Reports:
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                     CBSA INCIDENT REPORT AUDIENCE                      │
├──────────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Operational & Administrative     │ Judicial & Legal Oversight          │
│ • Shift Superintendents          │ • Crown Prosecutors                 │
│ • Regional Targeting Units       │ • Defense Attorneys                 │
│ • Intelligence Liaison Officers  │ • Provincial & Superior Court Judges│
│ • CFIA & RCMP Partner Agencies   │ • IRB Immigration Division Members  │
└──────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────┘

When an incident report enters a courtroom or tribunal, defense counsel will scrutinize every word. If a report relies on passive phrasing, ambiguous pronouns, or dense bureaucratic filler, it creates evidentiary vulnerabilities. Clear, concise, and direct language protects the integrity of the investigation and reinforces the professional credibility of the reporting officer.

---

Active Voice versus Passive Voice: The Legal Accountability Principle

A central tenet of plain language in law enforcement documentation is the prioritized use of the active voice.

The Grammatical Mechanics

• Active Voice: The subject of the sentence performs the action expressed by the verb. The grammatical structure follows: [Actor] + [Action Verb] + [Receiver / Target].
  • Active: Officer Morales examined the commercial shipment. (Actor = Officer Morales; Verb = examined; Target = shipment).
• Passive Voice: The subject of the sentence receives the action, while the actor is either relegated to a prepositional phrase (by...) or omitted entirely (agentless passive). The structure follows: [Receiver] + [Form of "to be"] + [Past Participle] + [by Actor].
  • Passive: The commercial shipment was examined by Officer Morales.
  • Agentless Passive: The commercial shipment was examined. (Who examined it? Unknown).

Active vs. Passive Sentence Dynamics:
ACTIVE VOICE (Direct, Accountable, Clear):
┌─────────────────┐       ┌──────────┐       ┌─────────────────────┐
│ Officer Morales │ ────> │ examined │ ────> │ the commercial cargo│
└─────────────────┘       └──────────┘       └─────────────────────┘
     [Subject/Actor]           [Finite Verb]       [Direct Object]

PASSIVE VOICE (Indirect, Obscured Actor, Wordy):
┌─────────────────────┐       ┌───────────────┐       ┌─────────────────┐
│ The commercial cargo│ <──── │ was examined  │ <──── │ by Officer Mor. │
└─────────────────────┘       └───────────────┘       └─────────────────┘
     [Grammatical Subject]     [Passive Auxiliary]     [Prepositional Agent]

The Danger of the "Agentless Passive" in Legal Proceedings

The most severe flaw in law enforcement writing is the agentless passive construction. When an officer writes in the passive voice and omits the actor, the narrative conceals who performed the statutory action. In court, this lack of clarity can be fatal to the prosecution:

• Flawed Report Excerpt: The traveler was escorted to secondary. The vehicle was searched, and four prohibited handguns were located in the glovebox. The Charter warning was read, and the suspect was arrested.
• Defense Cross-Examination Challenge: "Officer, who escorted my client to secondary? Did you search the glovebox, or did your partner? Who physically touched the handguns? Who read the Charter caution, and at what exact minute? Since your report says 'the warning was read,' can you swear under oath that you personally delivered it?"

By contrast, active voice assigns unambiguous responsibility for every observation and enforcement step:

• Active Plain-Language Revision: Officer Tremblay escorted the traveler to the secondary examination counter. I searched the vehicle and located four prohibited handguns inside the locked glovebox. At 14:22, I cautioned the traveler and read the Charter warning under Section 10(b). Officer Tremblay then arrested the traveler for smuggling under the Customs Act.

When Is Passive Voice Acceptable in CBSA Reports?

Passive voice is acceptable in law enforcement narratives only when the actor is genuinely unknown or when the recipient of the action is the sole operational focus of the sentence:

• Legitimate Passive: The commercial trailer's security seal had been broken prior to arrival at the inspection booth. (The individual who broke the seal is unknown and represents the subject of the investigation).

---

Eliminating Bureaucratic Bloat and Wordy Padding

Bureaucratic bloat consists of multi-word phrases that add syllable count and word volume without adding factual information. Candidates preparing for the OTEE must recognize these bloated idioms and replace them with precise, direct single words.

Wordiness Elimination Principle:
Bloated Phrase:  [at this point in time]  ──>  Plain Equivalent: [now / currently]
Bloated Phrase:  [due to the fact that]   ──>  Plain Equivalent: [because / since]
Bloated Phrase:  [in close proximity to]  ──>  Plain Equivalent: [near]

Master Reference Table: Wordy Idioms vs. Plain-Language Replacements

---

Redundancies and Tautologies in Operational Prose

A redundancy occurs when a sentence pairs words that repeat the same conceptual meaning. A tautology is an unnecessary repetition of an idea using different words. In operational law enforcement writing, redundancies weaken professional tone and waste reading time.

Redundancy Mechanics:
[collaborate]  =  work together
THEREFORE:
"collaborate together"  =  "work together together" (Illogical Repetition)

[advance]  =  ahead of time
THEREFORE:
"advance warning"  =  "warning ahead of time ahead of time" (Tautological)

Common Operational Redundancies to Eliminate

1. "Collaborate together": Collaborate derives from Latin com- (together) and laborare (to work). Writing "collaborate together" is an embarrassing tautology. Write collaborate or work together.
2. "Advance warning" / "Advance planning": A warning or plan is by definition prepared before an event occurs. Write warning or planning.
3. "Past history" / "Previous experience": History and experience reside entirely in the past. An officer cannot possess a "future history." Write history or experience.
4. "Completely unanimous": Unanimity means all parties agree without exception. It cannot be partial; therefore, it cannot be "completely" unanimous. Write unanimous.
5. "Surrounding circumstances": Circumstances (from Latin circum - around) are the conditions surrounding an event. Write circumstances.
6. "Close scrutiny" / "Careful examination": Scrutiny and examination denote meticulous, focused observation. Write scrutiny or examination.
7. "Exact same": Two items are either the same or different. Write same or identical.
8. "Period of time": A period is an interval of time. Write period or time.
9. "Foreign import": Goods brought across an international border are inherently foreign. Write import.
10. "True facts": A fact is a piece of information verified to be objectively true. An untrue statement is not a fact. Write facts.

---

Nominalizations: Unburying the Smothered Verb

A nominalization (often called a "smothered verb" or "buried verb") is a noun created from a verb or adjective. Nominalizations typically end in suffixes such as -tion, -ment, -ance, -ence, -ity, -sion, or -al.

While nominalizations are grammatically legitimate words, overusing them smothers the energy of your sentences. When a writer turns a dynamic action verb into an abstract noun, they must add a weak, empty filler verb (e.g., conducted, made, performed, undertook, effectuated) to keep the sentence functioning. This inflates sentence length and dulls narrative clarity.

Nominalization Anatomy:
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Dynamic Action:  "to examine"                          │
│ Smothered Noun:  "examination"                         │
│ Added Filler:    "conducted an examination of"        │
│ Result:          3 words replace 1, weakening force.   │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Master Conversion Table: Buried Verbs vs. Dynamic Verbs

---

Comparative Operational Case Studies: Bloated vs. Plain Language

Examine these authentic incident narratives to see how Government of Canada plain language guidelines transform dense, confusing police reports into crisp, legally defensible documentation.

Case Study 1: Secondary Vehicle Examination Narrative

Bloated, Wordy Version (142 Words):

At this point in time, subsequent to the primary referral of the subject vehicle, an examination of the conveyance was conducted by the undersigned officer for the purpose of detecting undeclared goods. Due to the fact that the driver was exhibiting nervous behaviors in close proximity to the trunk area, close scrutiny was given to the spare tire compartment. An inspection of the aforementioned compartment was performed, which resulted in the discovery of five packages of suspected narcotics. The seizure of the contraband was effectuated by Officer Tremblay, and an explanation of the statutory violations was provided to the traveler prior to the transport of the individual to the secondary detention holding cell.

Critical Critique:

• Word count: 142 words.
• Contains 5 bloated phrases (at this point in time, subsequent to, for the purpose of, due to the fact that, in close proximity to, prior to).
• Contains 4 buried verbs (conducted an examination of, close scrutiny was given to, an inspection was performed, seizure was effectuated, explanation was provided).
• Relies on agentless passives (an examination was conducted, close scrutiny was given, seizure was effectuated, explanation was provided), obscuring officer accountability.
• Uses redundant pairs (close scrutiny, aforementioned compartment).

Plain-Language Revision (65 Words):

After referring the vehicle to secondary, I examined the conveyance to detect undeclared goods. Because the driver acted nervously near the trunk, I scrutinized the spare tire compartment and found five packages of suspected narcotics. Officer Tremblay seized the contraband. I explained the statutory violations to the traveler and then escorted him to the secondary detention cell.

Operational Impact:

• Word Count Reduction: Reduced from 142 words to 65 words (54% reduction in text volume).
• Clarity & Accountability: Unambiguously identifies who searched the trunk (the author), who found the narcotics (the author), who seized the goods (Officer Tremblay), and who escorted the traveler (the author).
• Judicial Strength: Withstands cross-examination effortlessly; establishes a precise, chronological chain of custody.

---

Case Study 2: Commercial Cargo Manifest Discrepancy

Bloated, Wordy Version (116 Words):

With reference to commercial consignment BSF-8891, it is noted that an investigation into the declared weight was undertaken by commercial officers. In the event that the physical weight exceeds the documented manifest weight by ten percent, the issuance of an administrative monetary penalty is mandated under the Customs Act. Due to the fact that a discrepancy was verified by officers upon weighing the cargo, an assessment of an administrative monetary penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars was made against the freight carrier, and a formal notification was transmitted to the carrier's customs broker.

Plain-Language Revision (60 Words):

Commercial officers investigated consignment BSF-8891 to verify its declared weight. Under the Customs Act, cargo exceeding manifest weight by ten percent triggers an administrative monetary penalty. Because officers determined that the physical cargo exceeded documented weight, they assessed a five-hundred-dollar penalty against the freight carrier and formally notified the carrier's customs broker.

Operational Impact:

• Streamlines passive constructions into active causal sentences.
• Replaces "undertaken an investigation into" with "investigated", "an assessment was made" with "assessed", and "a formal notification was transmitted" with "notified".

---

Case Study 3: Traveler Declaration & Currency Seizure Report

Bloated, Wordy Version (138 Words):

Subsequent to the arrival of the subject traveler at the primary customs counter, inquiries were made by the primary officer with reference to the total quantity of currency in his possession. Due to the fact that the traveler was of the opinion that currency under fifteen thousand dollars was exempt from declaration, an incomplete declaration was provided. An escort of the traveler to the secondary cashier was performed by Officer Gagnon for the purpose of undertaking an audit of the cash. In the majority of instances, failure to declare cross-border currency in excess of ten thousand dollars results in statutory seizure. The execution of the seizure of fourteen thousand two hundred dollars was effectuated under the Proceeds of Crime Act, and a receipt was delivered to the traveler.

Plain-Language Revision (62 Words):

When the traveler arrived at primary, the officer asked about his currency. Believing that sums under fifteen thousand dollars were exempt, the traveler submitted an incomplete declaration. Officer Gagnon escorted him to secondary to audit the funds. Because cross-border currency over ten thousand dollars must be reported, Officer Gagnon seized $14,200 under the Proceeds of Crime Act and issued a seizure receipt.

Operational Impact:

• Word count dropped by 55% while retaining every critical statutory detail (exemption misconception, $10,000 threshold, Proceeds of Crime Act authority, receipt delivery).