本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

body-camera-incident-summary

Transforms police body camera transcripts into structured 10-section legal summaries with timestamp-cited verbatim statements, constitutional issue spotting, evidence inventory, and probable cause articulation. Maintains strict neutrality for all parties. Use when analyzing BWC footage for discovery, pre-trial prep, or trial. Trigger: body camera, BWC, body worn camera, officer footage, use of force review, incident summary.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md7.5 KB
  • LICENSE.txt10.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Body Camera Incident Summary

Produces a neutral 10-section legal summary from police body camera transcripts. Every factual claim cited [HH:MM:SS]. All dialogue verbatim — never paraphrase. Flag recording gaps at point of occurrence.

Prerequisites

  1. Transcript(s) — complete BWC transcript(s); load all officer feeds if multiple
  2. Supplemental materials (optional) — incident reports, dispatch logs, officer statements
  3. Matter phase — discovery, pre-trial, or trial (affects emphasis)

Quick Start

  1. Ingest all BWC transcripts and supplemental materials
  2. Produce sections 1–10 in order below
  3. Cite every factual claim [HH:MM:SS]; cross-reference timestamps across camera angles for force/search events
  4. Flag issues in Section 10 with category tags and recommended next steps

Output Sections

1. Case Information

FieldContent
Date/TimeRecording start with time zone
OfficersName, badge, role (primary/backup/supervisor/K-9/FTO)
LocationAddress or intersection, city, county, state
Tracking IDsCase no., incident no., CAD no.
DurationFinal timestamp; note late start or early cutoff
Technical deficienciesMuted segments, obstructed views, interrupted recording

State absent info explicitly — never infer.

2. Executive Summary

4–6 sentences: initiating event (traffic stop, Terry stop, dispatch, warrant, community caretaking), escalation/de-escalation arc, disposition (arrest/cite/release), primary legal issues (4A stop/search, Miranda, Graham v. Connor, qualified immunity).

3. Participant Identification

  • Subjects: name/alias [timestamp], warrants, probation/parole, medical/intoxication indicators
  • Officers: name, badge, role; FTO/trainee relationship
  • Third parties: relationship to subject; detained, questioned, or released

4. Chronological Timeline

Strict [HH:MM:SS] narrative at each inflection point:

MilestoneDocument
Initiating eventArticulated basis — violation, RS factors, dispatch info
Search discussionsComplete officer dialogue revealing legal theory
Detention → arrestPC statement; formal arrest language
MirandaVerbatim warnings + subject response to each component
Each searchScope, justification, temporal relation to consent/PC
Use of forceCommands (exact) → subject response type → force applied → interval → injury/medical
ContrabandLegal basis (plain view/consent/SITA/other); ownership claims verbatim
Database/dispatchWarrant hits, effect on PC development
Supervisor arrivalTimestamp, stated purpose
Evidence collectionOn-scene chain of custody actions

5. Constitutional & Procedural Analysis

4th Amendment

  • Stop validity: traffic (Whren), Terry (Terry v. Ohio), extension (Rodriguez)
  • Consent: exact language + response; voluntariness (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte)
  • PC warrantless: Carroll (vehicle); inventory pretext analysis
  • SITA: Gant (vehicle), Riley (cell phone)
  • K-9: sniff justification, detention duration, alert description, Florida v. Harris

5th Amendment / Miranda

  • Custody attachment moment; verbatim warnings; flag deviations
  • Waiver: knowing/voluntary/intelligent (Colorado v. Connelly)
  • Invocations: exact language; Edwards / Davis compliance
  • Post-invocation questioning → suppression flag

Use of Force — Graham v. Connor

  • Severity of crime; immediate threat; active resistance/flight
  • Force proportionality; temporal gap (compliance → continued force)
  • Contemporaneous justification verbatim; flag post-hoc rationalization

Arrest Authority — PC articulation; warrant or warrantless analysis

Additional: 1A (recording police), 6A (counsel invocation), state constitutional provisions, Brady/Giglio disclosure

6. Physical Evidence Catalog

Table per item: description, discovery timestamp, location, legal basis, ownership claims, chain of custody actions.

Detail by type:

  • Controlled substances: type, form, packaging, field test, weight, use vs. distribution indicators
  • Firearms: type, make/model, loaded status, serial
  • Currency: denominations, total, forfeiture warnings
  • Paraphernalia: items, residue, usable quantities

7. Verbatim Statements & Legal Admissions

Format: "[exact quote]" — [SPEAKER] [HH:MM:SS]

Organize by category: admissions/inculpatory, exculpatory/denials, rights invocations (note officer response), inconsistent statements (chronological), excited utterances, third-party statements, comprehension/capacity disclosures.

Excerpt lengthy statements with ellipses. Never paraphrase statements bearing on legal interpretation.

8. Officer Observations & PC Articulation

TypeCapture
OlfactoryOdor description, source, fresh vs. burnt; alcohol breath vs. vehicle
VisualFurtive movements, plain view items, impairment indicators
AuditorySlurred speech, concealment sounds, overheard conversations
Training/experienceVerbatim interpretations
Standardized testsFSTs, PBT result, DRE findings, refusals
Threat/safetyWeapon bulges, posturing, environmental factors

Reproduce RS/PC articulation verbatim. Flag post-hoc rationalization.

9. Disposition & Post-Arrest

  • Arrests: charges (felony/misdemeanor), enhancements
  • Citations: violation, court date
  • Releases: stated reason (may reveal evidentiary weakness)
  • Vehicles: impound basis, inventory procedures, third-party release
  • Evidence: lab submissions, safekeeping, currency forfeiture
  • Transport: destination, medical clearance
  • Post-arrest statements: Miranda status; patrol vehicle admissions
  • Victims/witnesses: contact info, injury documentation, protective orders

10. Critical Issues for Further Review

Flag each with category tag, specific facts, legal framework, and recommended next step.

TagIssue
[SUPPRESS]4A/5A violation → suppression motion
[MIRANDA]Equivocal invocation; post-invocation questioning
[FORCE]Disproportionate force; Graham excessive force claim
[GAP]Audio/video deficiency at critical moment
[CONFLICT]Timestamp/narrative inconsistency
[DISCOVERY]Brady/Giglio material; informant disclosure
[POLICY]Department policy deviation; municipal liability
[WITNESS]Bystander location; chain of custody deficiency
[EXPERT]Training/certification requiring review

Pitfalls

  • Neutrality: Document inculpatory and exculpatory evidence with equal precision
  • Absent info: Affirmatively state when data is missing — never infer or speculate
  • Verbatim standard: Never paraphrase rights invocations, consent exchanges, or admissions
  • Multiple feeds: Cross-reference timestamps across camera angles for force and search events
  • Jurisdiction: US federal floor; note state provisions providing greater protection
  • Uncertain citations: Mark with [VERIFY]

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

中国大陆地区法院类案快速检索与《案件检索报告》(DOCX)生成技能。以案件五项要点(案由/法律关系、争议焦点、关键事实、我方诉请与诉讼地位、请求权基础法条)为检索锚点,经一次四问确认即开工(其中**检索地域范围**与**裁判时间范围**为强制选择题,默认范围为「2021年1月1日以后裁判的浙江省范围内的法院案例」,用户点选默认后须回显该范围提示);按**请求权基础、法律关系、案件事实三要素**判定高匹配——用户**指定**检索特定结果的案例时结果相似度计入评分(四要素满分 10 分),用户**未指定**时结果相似度不作为高匹配考虑因素(三要素满分 8 分);r1 判定须**核对法条版本与时间效力**,援引已失效旧法条者不得给满分;以语义向量检索为主召回、精确结构检索为条件兜底,本地脚本加权打分后按「得分率 > 法院层级 > 审判程序 > 裁判日期」排序,并检测**同院同日同标题的重复入库**案件、疑似重复者不占入报名额;截取匹配度最高的 5–10 例类案,逐案调详情核验案号并摘录判词原文,最后直接输出含页脚页码的 DOCX 报告(默认保存至桌面)。全流程人工确认 1 次、检索类调用控制在 2 次召回 + ≤10 次详情以内,报告阶段检索冻结。未指定结果时三要素高匹配而结果相反者亦会入报(逐例标注结果方向),指定结果时结果相反者一律剔除;报告内以两处固定声明披露「未设不利先例定向检索路径」的局限。当用户要求「快速检索类似案例」「找几个正向案例」「快速版案例检索报告」「检索 5 到 10 个类案并出报告」「出一份类案检索报告 docx」时使用。需要四象限归位、反向案例定向检索、补充召回多轮迭代或 14 分制硬软条件精判时,应使用完整版技能「案例检索报告Plus」而非本技能。基于华宇元典法律数据 MCP。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

88查企业风险查询与分析工具 —— 专注于中国大陆企业的法务风险查询与分析,覆盖经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法案件等风险类型。支持公司名称、统一社会信用代码、companyId 三种输入方式,自动完成风险查询并输出结构化风险分析总结。 触发场景:仅当用户意图为查询企业风险/法务风险时触发。包括但不限于:企业风险查询、公司风险、经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法风险、风险扫描、风险评估、企业合规审查、风险报告、XX公司有什么风险、XX公司安全吗、XX公司有没有处罚、XX公司被执行过吗。 不触发场景:纯粹的企业信息查询(如查公司、搜企业、工商信息、注册资本、法人代表、股东结构、专利商标等)不应触发本技能,请使用其他 cha88 系列工具。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Manages Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition workflows — drafting notice topics with reasonable particularity, building examination outlines, defending designees, handling objections, and preserving binding admissions for summary judgment or trial. Use when drafting or responding to 30(b)(6) notices, selecting and preparing designees, building topic-by-topic outlines, or triaging scope and privilege disputes. Trigger keywords: 30(b)(6), corporate representative deposition, topic list, designee, notice analysis, deposition objections, corporate admissions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Guides taking and defending Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative depositions. Drafts topic lists with reasonable particularity, builds examination outlines for binding corporate admissions, analyzes noticed topics for objections, and prepares designees. Use when drafting 30(b)(6) notices, preparing corporate deposition topics, selecting or preparing designees, or defending corporate representative depositions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification submissions demonstrating substantial equivalence under 21 CFR Part 807. Supports Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated pathways. Use when preparing Class II medical device regulatory filings, substantial equivalence analyses, or FDA premarket submissions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts a recordable Abstract of Judgment to create a judgment lien on a debtor's real property. Extracts party names, monetary components, and judgment details from case documents, then applies jurisdiction-specific formatting and certification requirements. Use post-judgment in commercial litigation when enforcing monetary awards, perfecting judgment liens, or preparing lien filings with the county recorder.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

CSlawyer1985 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する