Many police agencies update their policies as a reactionary procedure rather than as a routine practice, according to a survey of 28 departments. Seventy-three percent of administrators indicated that policy and procedures revisions take a high priority. Another 19 percent assigned them to medium priority and 4 percent assigned revisions as a low priority. The final 4 percent reported they only updated and revised on an “as needed” basis. The priority levels are not always reflected in the number of sections updated at one time or the time spans between reviews. Only 27 percent of the respondents updated their entire policies and procedures manuals at one time. Another 27 percent updated sections on a rotating basis. The other 46 percent updated only sections that required revising due to immediate circumstances. The methods used by different agencies are extremely varied. Similar differences exist in the timing of reviews. However, this leaves the question of whether retroactive files are as helpful as proactive changes. There is no guarantee that constantly updated policies and procedures can forestall lawsuits, citizen complaints, etc. but agencies must try to be as up-to-date as possible. Ninety-three percent of respondents said that outdated and poorly worded policies and procedures can be potential magnets for opposing counsel to file lawsuits against agencies on behalf of clients. Some agencies maintain extensive policies and procedures manuals. Their sheer volume suggests that overhauling them in their entirety may not be practical. This article found that the true test of the importance of policies and procedures is not how professional they look or how many words may be misspelled, but rather the key is to keep them as up-to-date as possible.