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.

All Open Data Reports →See trends across years →

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

CategoryReportedPage
Interactions805,754printed p.1
Arrests36,994printed p.1
RTR incidents436printed p.1
Officer-involved shootings9printed p.1

Historical comparison

CategoryReportedPage
RTR2016384printed p.1
Growth over201614%printed p.1

Force applications

CategoryReportedPage
Total639printed p.2
CEW2016246printed p.2
CEW260 (40%)printed p.2
Physical2016271printed p.2
Physical346 (53%)printed p.2
Chemical201623printed p.2
Chemical22printed p.2
Impact20165printed p.2
Impact2printed p.2
Firearm20169printed p.2
Firearm9printed p.2

Reasons chart

CategoryReportedPage
Overcome resistance189%printed p.2
Protect self155%printed p.2
Protect other officer133%printed p.2
Protect citizen121%printed p.2
Protect prisoner16%printed p.2
Protect property13%printed p.2
Overpower animal threat13%printed p.2
Unintentional11%printed p.2
Other12%printed p.2
  1. Overlapping reasons.

Reasons narrative

CategoryReportedPage
Overcome resistance386 (89%)printed p.2
Protect self or others1239 (55%)printed p.2
  1. Broader label than chart Protect Self.

Individuals

CategoryReportedPage
Officers347printed p.2
Subjects425printed p.2
Subjects in two incidents10printed p.2
Subjects fatally shot6printed p.2
Officers in two or more incidents33%printed p.2
Officers30 or younger34%printed p.2
Officers tenure10 or less72%printed p.2
Subjects30 or younger49%printed p.2

Police officer age

CategoryReportedPage
<=2511%printed p.3
26-3023%printed p.3
31-3522%printed p.3
36-4018%printed p.3
41-4512%printed p.3
46-509%printed p.3
51-554%printed p.3
56-601%printed p.3
61+0%printed p.3

Police officer tenure

CategoryReportedPage
<=5151%printed p.3
6-10120%printed p.3
11-15117%printed p.3
16-2017%printed p.3
21-2514%printed p.3
26+11%printed p.3
  1. First two bins total71% versus narrative72%; rounding may explain.

Subject injuries chart

CategoryReportedPage
Injured1216 (51%)printed p.3
Not injured209 (49%)printed p.3
  1. Chart totals425 subjects; narrative describes51% of436 incidents.

Injury narrative

CategoryReportedPage
Incidents with injured or allegedly injured subjects151%printed p.3
Subjects died from deadly force injuries6printed p.3
  1. Do not infer exact count from rounded percentage.

Injured subject treatment

CategoryReportedPage
Treated by Officer115%printed p.3
Treated by Rescue170%printed p.3
Transported132%printed p.3
Treated by Hospital144%printed p.3
  1. May overlap; chart does not explicitly state denominator.

Complaints received

CategoryReportedPage
Total1933printed p.5
Citizen1724printed p.5
In-house1209printed p.5
Further investigation1550printed p.5
  1. All employee complaints, not restricted to RTR.

Complaints investigated

CategoryReportedPage
Sustained187 (34%)printed p.5
Exonerated133 (24%)printed p.5
Unfounded125 (23%)printed p.5
Not Sustained105 (19%)printed p.5

Investigated complaints: in-house

CategoryReportedPage
Sustained138printed p.5
Exonerated4printed p.5
Unfounded9printed p.5
Not Sustained7printed p.5

Investigated complaints: citizen

CategoryReportedPage
Sustained49printed p.5
Exonerated129printed p.5
Unfounded116printed p.5
Not Sustained98printed p.5

Corrective/disciplinary actions

CategoryReportedPage
Counseling or Training180 (43%)printed p.6
Written Rep 2161 (33%)printed p.6
Written Rep 1118 (10%)printed p.6
Demotion11 (0.01%)printed p.6
Resigned or Retired110 (5%)printed p.6
Termination19 (5%)printed p.6
Suspension18 (4%)printed p.6
  1. Category counts sum187 sustained cases. Counseling/training not discipline; resignation/retirement not necessarily imposed sanction.

Bias-based complaints

CategoryReportedPage
Total10printed p.6

Bias-based complaints by zone

CategoryReportedPage
Zone 111 (10%)printed p.6
Zone 213 (30%)printed p.6
Zone 312 (20%)printed p.6
Zone 413 (30%)printed p.6
Zone 511 (10%)printed p.6
Zone 610printed p.6
  1. No individual disposition breakdown; all ten Unfounded, Not Sustained, or Exonerated.

Unnecessary force investigations

CategoryReportedPage
Total90printed p.6
Exonerated152 (65%)printed p.6
Sustained117 (21.3%)printed p.6
Not Sustained111 (13.8%)printed p.6
Open110 (12.5%)printed p.6
  1. 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

CategoryReportedPage
Calls from citizens1,495,966printed p.8
Interactions805,754printed p.8
Dispatched calls484,162printed p.8
Officer on-view321,592printed p.8
Arrests36,994printed p.8
RTR incidents436printed p.8
Officer-involved shootings9printed p.8

Appendix rates

CategoryReportedPage
Arrests as a share of police/citizen interactions136,994 (4.59%)printed p.8
RTR incidents as a share of police/citizen interactions1436 (0.54%)printed p.8
RTR incidents as a share of arrests1436 (1.18%)printed p.8
Officer-involved shootings as a share of police/citizen interactions19 (0.001%)printed p.8
Officer-involved shootings as a share of arrests19 (0.02%)printed p.8
Officer-involved shootings as a share of RTR incidents19 (2.1%)printed p.8
  1. Ratio only; incidents and arrests not necessarily one-to-one.

Appendix per capita

CategoryReportedPage
Arrests11 per 25 residentsprinted p.8
RTR incidents11 per 2,124 residentsprinted p.8
Officer-involved shootings11 per 102,918 residentsprinted p.8
  1. 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.