Open Data Reports

JSO Open Data Report 2018

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 2018reportAccessed 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; cover unnumbered, printed1=PDF2. Numeric source_page fields use 1-based PDF pages. Narrative/charts/appendix preserved separately. Reasons and treatment categories may overlap. Rounded percentages do not establish exact counts. Overall RTR includes police, corrections and judicial officers; demographic charts labeled police officers. P.3 attributes increased documented subjects to recently enacted reporting rule for alleged non-visible injuries and injuries not directly related to force; agency explanation not independently verified. RTR reports reviewed by chain of command and POU, potentially Director/RTR Board/IA; Cold Case Unit investigates firearm discharge at individuals. P.4 documents 2018 improved handcuffing training: secure grip on suspect before removing handcuffs from pouch, attributed to resistance during physical detention. Basic, annual in-service, monthly roll-call, specialized and remedial training described. Complaints accepted from any source; minor misconduct referred to supervisor and serious to IA detective after preliminary review. P.7 describes POU oversight of RTR, vehicle crashes/incidents, pursuits, review boards, Personnel Early Intervention Program and process improvement; no negative trends is agency assessment. Appendix dated March 2019; no exact publication day inferred.

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
Interactions836,155printed p.1 (PDF page 2)
Arrests41,607printed p.1 (PDF page 2)
RTR incidents509printed p.1 (PDF page 2)
Officer-involved shootings5printed p.1 (PDF page 2)
OIS per capita11 per 185,252 residentsprinted p.1 (PDF page 2)
  1. Published 1 in N; population basis not specified.

Historical comparison

CategoryReportedPage
RTR2017436printed p.1 (PDF page 2)
Growth over 2017116.7%printed p.1 (PDF page 2)
  1. (509-436)/436*100=16.7431%.

Force applications

CategoryReportedPage
Total747printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
FIREARM16 (2.1%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
TASER315 (42.2%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
OC SPRAY18 (2.4%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
IMPACT WEAPON1 (0.1%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
PHYSICAL FORCE397 (53.1%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)

Reasons chart

CategoryReportedPage
Overcome resistance1461 (90.6%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Protect self1254 (49.9%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Protect other officer1148 (29.1%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Protect citizen188 (17.3%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Protect prisoner129 (5.7%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Protect property118 (3.5%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Overpower animal threat110 (2%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Unintentional15 (1%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Other/unknown113 (2.6%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
  1. Reasons may overlap; do not sum as distinct incidents.

Reasons narrative

CategoryReportedPage
Overcome resistance461 (90.6%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Protect self or others1301 (59.1%)printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
  1. Includes Protect Self, Protect Other Officer, Protect Citizen, Protect Prisoner, Protect Victim & Others. Overlapping categories; not sum of chart categories.

Individuals

CategoryReportedPage
Officers634printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Subjects485printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Subjects in two incidents16printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Subjects fatally shot4printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Officers tenure10 or less174.8%printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Officers on duty192.6%printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Officers dispatched151.4%printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
Subjects30 or younger149.2%printed p.2 (PDF page 3)
  1. Published percentage; exact numerator not supplied.

Police officer age

CategoryReportedPage
<=25168 (10.7%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
26-301181 (28.5%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
31-351143 (22.6%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
36-40191 (14.4%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
41-45168 (10.7%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
46-50153 (8.4%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
51-55118 (2.8%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
56-60111 (1.7%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
61+11 (0.2%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
  1. Chart titled police officers; overall RTR scope includes corrections and judicial officers.

Police officer tenure

CategoryReportedPage
<=5386 (60.9%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
6-1088 (13.9%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
11-1587 (13.7%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
16-2039 (6.2%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
21-2532 (5%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
26+2 (0.3%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)

Subject injuries chart

CategoryReportedPage
Yes254 (77.2%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
No57 (17.3%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
Unknown18 (5.5%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)

Injury narrative

CategoryReportedPage
Subjects injured or allegedly injured165.7%printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
Subjects501printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
Subjects died from deadly force injuries4printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
Subjects non-fatally shot1printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
  1. Exact injury numerator not reported; do not manufacture a count from rounded percentage.

Injured subject treatment

CategoryReportedPage
Treated by Officer143 (10.3%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
Treated by Rescue1283 (67.7%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
Transported1127 (30.4%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
Treated by Hospital1177 (42.3%)printed p.3 (PDF page 4)
  1. Treatment categories may overlap. Denominator unspecified; all four percentages are consistent with 418, but that total is not printed and is not assumed.

Complaints received

CategoryReportedPage
Total1,164printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
Citizen996printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
In-house168printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
Further investigation877printed p.5 (PDF page 6)

Complaints investigated

CategoryReportedPage
Sustained1202 (20%)printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
Exonerated1305 (35%)printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
Unfounded1303 (35%)printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
Not Sustained167 (7%)printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
  1. Includes some 2016/2017 investigations completed in 2018; excludes active cases and complaints not warranting administrative investigation.

Investigated complaints: in-house

CategoryReportedPage
Sustained131printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
Exonerated3printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
Unfounded7printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
Not Sustained10printed p.5 (PDF page 6)

Investigated complaints: citizen

CategoryReportedPage
Sustained71printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
Exonerated302printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
Unfounded296printed p.5 (PDF page 6)
Not Sustained57printed p.5 (PDF page 6)

Corrective/disciplinary actions

CategoryReportedPage
Counseling or Training137%printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Written Rep 1137%printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Written Rep 216%printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Suspension16%printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Demotion11%printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Resignation or Retired19%printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Termination14%printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
  1. Only rounded shares printed; exact counts not inferred.

Bias-based complaints

CategoryReportedPage
Total received8printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Unfounded or Exonerated110printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
  1. Narrative says all ten despite eight received and eight in zone chart; preserved without correction.

Bias-based complaints by zone

CategoryReportedPage
Zone 13printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Zone 21printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Zone 31printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Zone 41printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Zone 52printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Zone 610printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
  1. Zone 6 explicitly has no complaints.

Unnecessary force investigations

CategoryReportedPage
Total68printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Exonerated154 (79%)printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Sustained13 (4.5%)printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Not Sustained18 (12%)printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Open13 (4.5%)printed p.6 (PDF page 7)
Exonerated/Unfounded cases not formally investigated235printed p.7 (PDF page 8)
  1. Open status as of January 31, 2019. P.7 calls 54 cases Exonerated/Unfounded and says 35 were not formally investigated.
  2. Agency says initial review clearly showed officers within policy; attributed claim.

Year in Review appendix

CategoryReportedPage
Calls from citizens1,427,079printed p.8 (PDF page 9)
Interactions836,154printed p.8 (PDF page 9)
Dispatched calls475,742printed p.8 (PDF page 9)
Officer on-view360,412printed p.8 (PDF page 9)
Arrests41,607printed p.8 (PDF page 9)
RTR incidents509printed p.8 (PDF page 9)
Officer-involved shootings5printed p.8 (PDF page 9)

Appendix rates

CategoryReportedPage
Arrests as a share of police/citizen interactions41,607 (5.16%)printed p.8 (PDF page 9)
RTR incidents as a share of police/citizen interactions509 (0.63%)printed p.8 (PDF page 9)
RTR incidents as a share of arrests509 (1.2%)printed p.8 (PDF page 9)
Officer-involved shootings as a share of police/citizen interactions5 (0.0006%)printed p.8 (PDF page 9)
Officer-involved shootings as a share of arrests5 (0.01%)printed p.8 (PDF page 9)
Officer-involved shootings as a share of RTR incidents5 (0.98%)printed p.8 (PDF page 9)

Appendix per capita

CategoryReportedPage
Arrests11 per 22 residentsprinted p.8 (PDF page 9)
RTR incidents11 per 1,820 residentsprinted p.8 (PDF page 9)
Officer-involved shootings11 per 185,252 residentsprinted p.8 (PDF page 9)
  1. Published 1 in N; population basis unspecified.

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.

  • Conflicting totals · printed pp.1,8

    Main table reports 836155 interactions; appendix reports 836154, which equals 475742 dispatched + 360412 on-view. Preserve both.

  • Ambiguous denominator · printed pp.2-3

    P.2 reports 485 subjects with 16 in two incidents, plausibly explaining 501 subject-involvements on p.3, but units not explicit. Injury chart is 254 yes +57 no +18 unknown=329, with yes=77.2036%. Narrative instead reports 65.7% of 501; 329/501=65.6687%, suggesting chart total may describe an injured subgroup, but chart labels include No and Unknown. Interpretation unresolved.

  • Ambiguous denominator · printed p.3

    43(10.3%),283(67.7%),127(30.4%),177(42.3%) all fit denominator418 after rounding. Report does not state418 or reconcile treatment population with injury chart329 or narrative501. Treatment categories may overlap; do not sum.

  • Percentage mismatch · printed p.5

    202/877*100=23.0331%, not20%; 67/877*100=7.6397%, rounds to8%, not7%. Other two shares round to35%. Four counts sum877; published percentages sum97%.

  • Conflicting totals · printed p.6

    Narrative reports eight bias complaints, and zone counts sum8, then says all ten were Unfounded or Exonerated. Both totals preserved.

  • Ambiguous category · printed pp.6-7

    P.6 calls68 cases investigations and54 Exonerated; p.7 calls54 Exonerated/Unfounded and says35 were not formally investigated. Distinguish preliminary reviews from formal investigations; split of unfounded/exonerated not supplied.

  • Rounding difference · printed p.6

    3/68*100=4.4118%, rounds to4.4% at one decimal, versus4.5% for both Sustained and Open. Counts reconcile to68; the reported shares sum100%.

  • Percentage mismatch · printed p.8

    41607/836154*100=4.975999%, not published5.16%.

  • Percentage mismatch · printed p.8

    509/836154*100=0.060874%, not published0.63%.

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.
Appendix Police/Citizen Interactions
Contacts are created any time JSO officers interact with a citizen, whether called to a scene OR an individual officer comes upon a scene requiring further investigation (on-view).
Appendix Response to Resistance Incident (RTR)
The incident which involves an application of force.
Appendix Use of Force
The actual application of force whereby an officer utilizes a within-policy maneuver and/or technique to establish control of the subject(s).
Appendix Methods of Use of Force
Taser / Physical / Chemical / Impact / Firearm