JSO Open Data Report 2019

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.

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.

• Comparability limitation · printed p.1

  2019 explicitly separates553 police RTR incidents and322 corrections RTR incidents. Prior2018 report describes509 including police, corrections and judicial officers. Do not compare553 with509 as an unchanged scope or assume553+322 are unique incidents without overlap information.

• Ambiguous category · printed pp.2-3

  Police narrative266(48.1%) and corrections187(58.1%) describe protecting self or others, but respective charts label those counts Protect Self and list additional protection categories. Categories overlap, and distinct union totals are not established.

• Conflicting totals · printed p.4

  Narrative says28.8% of536 subjects reported/alleged injury. Pie chart shows Yes386(71.2%) and No156(28.8%), totaling542. Both injured share/legend and total conflict. Preserve chart as printed; do not silently swap legend.156/542=28.7823%, while156/536=29.1045%.

• Ambiguous denominator · printed p.4

  67(12.8%),348(66.3%),143(27.2%),217(41.3%) all fit525 after rounding.525 is not stated and differs from536 narrative subjects and542 chart total. Categories can overlap; sum is not a person count.

• Ambiguous denominator · printed p.5

  Activity chart counts sum173 and percentages match that denominator, whereas narrative reports217 incidents and271 involved officers. Narrative refers to injuries but chart only says Officers by activity; subgroup/unit not explicit.

• Denominator change · printed pp.7-8

  Disposition counts222+79+48+65=414. Published18.8%,6.7%,4.1%,5.5% match division by1180 total complaints received, not414 completed dispositions (53.6232%,19.0821%,11.5942%,15.7005%). This is a denominator/scope qualification, not proof of bad arithmetic; differs from preceding reports.

• Percentage mismatch · printed p.9

  2/43*100=4.65116%, which rounds to4.7% at one decimal, not published4.4%. The43 disposition counts reconcile; remaining shares round as printed.

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 energy 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.

Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer (BOLEO)

A battery on a law enforcement officer occurs when a sworn law enforcement officer or non-sworn correctional officer, acting in those capacities, is a victim of a simple or aggravated assault/battery; or a victim of a sexual battery; or is killed.