Open Data Reports
JSO Open Data Report 2017
JSO's annual report on use of force, assaults on officers, and complaints against employees. Every figure below is transcribed from JSO Open Data Report 2017reportAccessed Oct 12, 2026 as printed, including where its own numbers don't add up.
Notes on our transcription
Locators use printed pages; printed1=PDF2. P.1 RTR includes police, corrections and judicial officers; demographic charts labeled police officers, so identical scope is not assumed. P.7 states Professional Oversight Unit formed at beginning of2017 to review RTR, vehicle crashes/incidents and pursuits, and oversee/facilitate RTR Review Board, Safety Review Board, Personnel Early Intervention Program and process improvement. Agency-reported formation, no exact date inferred. P.3 says recently enacted reporting provision includes non-visible alleged injuries or injuries not directly related to force; agency attributes increased documented subjects to provision, not independently established causation. RTR reviewed by chain of command and Professional Oversight Unit, potentially Director/RTR Board/IA; Cold Case Unit investigates firearm discharges at individuals. P.4 training: basic, annual in-service, monthly roll-call, specialized and remedial. Complaints accepted from any source, minor misconduct referred to supervisor and serious to IA detective after preliminary review. P.7 agency reports no negative patterns/trends; attributed assessment. Tenure bins<=10 sum71% versus narrative72%, potentially rounding. Original figures preserved with separate checks.
Reported figures
Grouped under the report's own section headings, in the order they appear. A figure marked with an earlier year is a prior-year comparison quoted in this report. Categories within a section can overlap, so they don't always add up to a total.
Overall
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Interactions | 805,754 | printed p.1 |
| Arrests | 36,994 | printed p.1 |
| RTR incidents | 436 | printed p.1 |
| Officer-involved shootings | 9 | printed p.1 |
Historical comparison
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| RTR2016 | 384 | printed p.1 |
| Growth over2016 | 14% | printed p.1 |
Force applications
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 639 | printed p.2 |
| CEW2016 | 246 | printed p.2 |
| CEW | 260 (40%) | printed p.2 |
| Physical2016 | 271 | printed p.2 |
| Physical | 346 (53%) | printed p.2 |
| Chemical2016 | 23 | printed p.2 |
| Chemical | 22 | printed p.2 |
| Impact2016 | 5 | printed p.2 |
| Impact | 2 | printed p.2 |
| Firearm2016 | 9 | printed p.2 |
| Firearm | 9 | printed p.2 |
Reasons chart
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Overcome resistance1 | 89% | printed p.2 |
| Protect self1 | 55% | printed p.2 |
| Protect other officer1 | 33% | printed p.2 |
| Protect citizen1 | 21% | printed p.2 |
| Protect prisoner1 | 6% | printed p.2 |
| Protect property1 | 3% | printed p.2 |
| Overpower animal threat1 | 3% | printed p.2 |
| Unintentional1 | 1% | printed p.2 |
| Other1 | 2% | printed p.2 |
- Overlapping reasons.
Reasons narrative
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Overcome resistance | 386 (89%) | printed p.2 |
| Protect self or others1 | 239 (55%) | printed p.2 |
- Broader label than chart Protect Self.
Individuals
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Officers | 347 | printed p.2 |
| Subjects | 425 | printed p.2 |
| Subjects in two incidents | 10 | printed p.2 |
| Subjects fatally shot | 6 | printed p.2 |
| Officers in two or more incidents | 33% | printed p.2 |
| Officers30 or younger | 34% | printed p.2 |
| Officers tenure10 or less | 72% | printed p.2 |
| Subjects30 or younger | 49% | printed p.2 |
Police officer age
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| <=25 | 11% | printed p.3 |
| 26-30 | 23% | printed p.3 |
| 31-35 | 22% | printed p.3 |
| 36-40 | 18% | printed p.3 |
| 41-45 | 12% | printed p.3 |
| 46-50 | 9% | printed p.3 |
| 51-55 | 4% | printed p.3 |
| 56-60 | 1% | printed p.3 |
| 61+ | 0% | printed p.3 |
Police officer tenure
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| <=51 | 51% | printed p.3 |
| 6-101 | 20% | printed p.3 |
| 11-151 | 17% | printed p.3 |
| 16-201 | 7% | printed p.3 |
| 21-251 | 4% | printed p.3 |
| 26+1 | 1% | printed p.3 |
- First two bins total71% versus narrative72%; rounding may explain.
Subject injuries chart
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Injured1 | 216 (51%) | printed p.3 |
| Not injured | 209 (49%) | printed p.3 |
- Chart totals425 subjects; narrative describes51% of436 incidents.
Injury narrative
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Incidents with injured or allegedly injured subjects1 | 51% | printed p.3 |
| Subjects died from deadly force injuries | 6 | printed p.3 |
- Do not infer exact count from rounded percentage.
Injured subject treatment
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Treated by Officer1 | 15% | printed p.3 |
| Treated by Rescue1 | 70% | printed p.3 |
| Transported1 | 32% | printed p.3 |
| Treated by Hospital1 | 44% | printed p.3 |
- May overlap; chart does not explicitly state denominator.
Complaints received
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Total1 | 933 | printed p.5 |
| Citizen1 | 724 | printed p.5 |
| In-house1 | 209 | printed p.5 |
| Further investigation1 | 550 | printed p.5 |
- All employee complaints, not restricted to RTR.
Complaints investigated
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Sustained | 187 (34%) | printed p.5 |
| Exonerated | 133 (24%) | printed p.5 |
| Unfounded | 125 (23%) | printed p.5 |
| Not Sustained | 105 (19%) | printed p.5 |
Investigated complaints: in-house
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Sustained | 138 | printed p.5 |
| Exonerated | 4 | printed p.5 |
| Unfounded | 9 | printed p.5 |
| Not Sustained | 7 | printed p.5 |
Investigated complaints: citizen
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Sustained | 49 | printed p.5 |
| Exonerated | 129 | printed p.5 |
| Unfounded | 116 | printed p.5 |
| Not Sustained | 98 | printed p.5 |
Corrective/disciplinary actions
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Counseling or Training1 | 80 (43%) | printed p.6 |
| Written Rep 21 | 61 (33%) | printed p.6 |
| Written Rep 11 | 18 (10%) | printed p.6 |
| Demotion1 | 1 (0.01%) | printed p.6 |
| Resigned or Retired1 | 10 (5%) | printed p.6 |
| Termination1 | 9 (5%) | printed p.6 |
| Suspension1 | 8 (4%) | printed p.6 |
- Category counts sum187 sustained cases. Counseling/training not discipline; resignation/retirement not necessarily imposed sanction.
Bias-based complaints
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 10 | printed p.6 |
Bias-based complaints by zone
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Zone 11 | 1 (10%) | printed p.6 |
| Zone 21 | 3 (30%) | printed p.6 |
| Zone 31 | 2 (20%) | printed p.6 |
| Zone 41 | 3 (30%) | printed p.6 |
| Zone 51 | 1 (10%) | printed p.6 |
| Zone 61 | 0 | printed p.6 |
- No individual disposition breakdown; all ten Unfounded, Not Sustained, or Exonerated.
Unnecessary force investigations
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 90 | printed p.6 |
| Exonerated1 | 52 (65%) | printed p.6 |
| Sustained1 | 17 (21.3%) | printed p.6 |
| Not Sustained1 | 11 (13.8%) | printed p.6 |
| Open1 | 10 (12.5%) | printed p.6 |
- Published percentages use80 completed cases, including open10/80. This check uses all90 investigations. Open as of2018-01-31; source omits% sign after12.5.
Year in Review appendix
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Calls from citizens | 1,495,966 | printed p.8 |
| Interactions | 805,754 | printed p.8 |
| Dispatched calls | 484,162 | printed p.8 |
| Officer on-view | 321,592 | printed p.8 |
| Arrests | 36,994 | printed p.8 |
| RTR incidents | 436 | printed p.8 |
| Officer-involved shootings | 9 | printed p.8 |
Appendix rates
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Arrests as a share of police/citizen interactions1 | 36,994 (4.59%) | printed p.8 |
| RTR incidents as a share of police/citizen interactions1 | 436 (0.54%) | printed p.8 |
| RTR incidents as a share of arrests1 | 436 (1.18%) | printed p.8 |
| Officer-involved shootings as a share of police/citizen interactions1 | 9 (0.001%) | printed p.8 |
| Officer-involved shootings as a share of arrests1 | 9 (0.02%) | printed p.8 |
| Officer-involved shootings as a share of RTR incidents1 | 9 (2.1%) | printed p.8 |
- Ratio only; incidents and arrests not necessarily one-to-one.
Appendix per capita
| Category | Reported | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Arrests1 | 1 per 25 residents | printed p.8 |
| RTR incidents1 | 1 per 2,124 residents | printed p.8 |
| Officer-involved shootings1 | 1 per 102,918 residents | printed p.8 |
- Published1 in N; population base not provided.
Data-quality notes
What we found checking this report against itself: totals that don't match their breakdowns, percentages that don't match their counts, revisions, and changes in what a figure covers. We kept JSO's published numbers as printed rather than correcting them.
Percentage mismatch · printed p.2
260/639=40.6886%, not40% when rounded;346/639=54.1471%, not53%. Count categories sum639 correctly.
Ambiguous denominator · printed p.3
Chart216+209=425 subjects and216/425=50.8235%. Narrative51% of436 incidents has a different unit/denominator. Cannot equate subject and incident measures.
Percentage mismatch · printed p.6
1/187*100=0.534759%, not published0.01%.
Inconsistent denominator · printed p.6
90 investigations include80 completed and10 open. Published65.0%,21.3%,13.8% correspond to52,17,11 divided by80 completed. Open12.5 (percent sign absent) also equals10/80, not10/90=11.1111%. Do not treat all listed percentages as shares of90.
Ambiguous category · printed p.2
Narrative239(55%) refers to protecting self or others, while chart55% says Protect Self and separately lists protection of others.
Percentage mismatch · printed p.8
436/805754*100=0.054111%, not published0.54%.
Definitions
How this report defines its terms, summarized from the report itself.
- Response-to-Resistance (RTR) Incident
- Response-to-Resistance (RTR) Incident - Any instance involving a use of force by an officer in the course of his official duties that meets at least one of the following criteria: A firearm was discharged; An intermediate weapon was used on or against an individual; A person or animal was exposed to a chemical agent; A Special Weapons & Tactics (SWAT) team member used a specialty weapon in a non-SWAT incident; A conducted electrical weapon (CEW) was deployed in ‘Probe’ or ‘Touch-Stun’ mode; Physical force was used on a subject and the force resulted, or was alleged to have resulted, in any injury, regardless of the severity; An injury was observed on a subject following any use of force; A ramming maneuver was used on a vehicle; An arrestee was rejected admission to the Pre-Trial Detention Facility (PDF) and directed to the hospital due to alleged injuries sustained from a member’s response to resistance; After an arrestee was granted admission to the PDF, the arrestee alleged an injury was sustained from a member’s response to resistance (In these cases, the PDF will notify the approving supervisor listed on the Arrest & Booking Report that such an allegation was made); or A supervisor determines an RTR Report is appropriate.
- Use of Force
- Use of Force - The application of an agency-approved technique used to establish the physical control of a subject who is resisting an officer’s lawful attempts to take him into custody. The five use-of-force categories are:
- CEW
- CEW: force that involved the use of a conducted electrical weapon (CEW), commonly referred to as a “Taser”;
- Chemical
- Chemical: force that involved a chemical agent such as Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Spray;
- Firearm
- Firearm: force that involved the use of an agency-issued or agency-approved small arms weapon, such as a rifle or pistol;
- Intermediate
- Intermediate: force that involved a baton and/or specialty impact weapon; and
- Physical
- Physical: force that involved the use of physical control techniques, restraint devices, transporters, pain compliance, takedowns, and counter-moves.
- Unfounded
- Unfounded – The administrative investigation determined the allegations were false or were not supported by the facts.
- Exonerated
- Exonerated – The administrative investigation determined the alleged actions occurred, but were lawful and proper.
- Not Sustained
- Not Sustained – The administrative investigation determined there was insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation.
- Sustained
- Sustained – The administrative investigation determined there was a preponderance of evidence to support a violation of agency rules and/or regulations.
- Remedial Training
- Remedial Training – The member is given additional training in an area where he/she has demonstrated one or more deficiencies. Remedial Training can be given in addition to any other form of corrective/disciplinary actions; it is not considered discipline.
- Informal Counseling
- Informal Counseling – The member is given a verbal warning regarding the violation(s) of policy. Informal Counseling is not considered discipline.
- Formal Counseling
- Formal Counseling – The member is given a written warning regarding the violation(s) of policy. This step is also not considered discipline, but is a more significant course of action than an Informal Counseling.
- Written Reprimand I
- Written Reprimand I – This is the first official disciplinary step in the scale. The member is given a document that outlines his violation(s) of policy, discusses consequences for future violations, and stays active for three years. Written Reprimands are given when a member has not responded to previous training and/or counseling, but they are also given without any previous corrective actions if the violation is significant enough.
- Written Reprimand II
- Written Reprimand II – A Written Reprimand II is similar to a Written Reprimand I, but is given for more significant violations of policy.
- Suspension or Demotion
- Suspension or Demotion – When a member has failed to respond to written reprimands or when a member commits an act of serious misconduct, he/she may be suspended without pay or, if the member has achieved supervisory rank, he/she may be demoted to a previously-held rank.
- Termination
- Termination – In situations where a member has committed particularly serious violations of policy, or has committed numerous violations of policy without any improvement in performance, he/she may be separated from the Sheriff’s Office.
- Bias-based profiling
- Complaints that allege any form of bias-based profiling are distinctly monitored so that any trends can be easily identified. Bias-based profiling occurs when, whether intentionally or unintentionally, employees apply their own personal, societal, or organizational biases or stereotypes when making decisions or taking law enforcement action, and the ONLY reason for that decision or action is because of a person’s race, ethnicity, background, gender, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, age, culture or other personal characteristic, rather than due to the observed behavior of the individual or the identification of the individual being engaged in criminal activity.