2020 Open Data Report

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.

• Revision · PDF page 9

  December 2022 review changed 10 complaints/0 sustained to 11/1. Added investigation had been active at initial reporting; bias allegation emerged through investigation. Prior version counts retained only as historical observations.

• Denominator mismatch · PDF page 4

  Chart percentages use 822 summed reason selections. Narrative calls 370 incidents 45.0%, but 370/432 incidents is 85.65%. Preserve published 45.0%; do not compare chart shares directly with police incident-based percentages.

• Internal inconsistency · PDF page 5

  Narrative reports 84.4% with <=5 years experience; chart reports 343/404 =84.9%. Both published figures retained.

• Scope ambiguity · PDF page 5

  Treatment categories sum to 460, differing from 292 injured subjects and 483 subjects. Whether treatments repeat or cover another population is unspecified.

• Scope ambiguity · PDF page 6

  Activity chart totals 209, compared with 230 incidents and 270 officer involvements. No reconciliation or exact chart population provided.

• Scope ambiguity · PDF page 9

  Corrective/disciplinary categories total 286 versus 202 sustained cases. Multiple actions or employee/case counting may explain difference; report does not specify. Counseling is not discipline under definitions.

• Scope ambiguity · PDF page 10

  Text calls 62 investigations, but footnote says 45 not formally investigated. Listed dispositions total 17; together 62. Do not infer 45 unfounded, as footnote combines exonerated/unfounded.

• Pagination · PDF page 10

  Final PDF page is printed as page 1. All locators use PDF page 10 to disambiguate.

• Scope ambiguity · PDF page 5

  Percentages for cause/type of injury lack exact underlying counts and clear category denominators; stored as percentage-only observations, not inferred persons.

Definitions

How this report defines its terms, summarized from the report itself.

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 Energy 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

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 the subject into custody.

CEW

Force that involved the use of a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW), commonly referred to as a “Taser”

Chemical

Force that involved a chemical agent such as Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Spray

Firearm

Force that involved the use of an agency‐issued or agency‐approved small arms weapon, such as a rifle or pistol

Intermediate

Force that involved a baton and/or specialty impact weapon; and

Physical

Force that involved the use of physical control techniques, restraint devices, transporters, pain compliance, takedown techniques, and counter move techniques.

Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer

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.

Unfounded

The administrative investigation determined an allegation of misconduct was false or not supported by the facts.

Exonerated

The administrative investigation determined the alleged misconduct occurred, but the member’s actions were lawful and proper.

Not Sustained

The administrative investigation determined there was insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation of misconduct.

Sustained

The administrative investigation determined there was a preponderance of evidence to support a violation of agency policy, rules and/or regulations.

Remedial Training

The member is given additional training in an area where they have demonstrated one or more deficiencies. Remedial Training can be given in addition to any other form of corrective/disciplinary actions and is not considered discipline.

Informal Counseling Session

This is a discussion between the supervisor and a subordinate, which is positive and correctively advisory in nature, and is the first step in bringing about improvements in the member's behavior. It may involve, among other things, a procedural clarification, recommendation to obtain additional training, suggestions for improvement, an oral admonishment for a perceived indiscretion, or a suggestion that the employee obtain professional counseling. Informal Counseling does not require written documentation and is not considered discipline.

Formal Counseling Session

This is a discussion between a supervisor and a subordinate in which the subordinate's improper behavior and necessary improvements are brought to his attention. Formal counseling sessions are, generally, used after informal supervisor/subordinate communications have failed to produce the desired results or when the conduct or performance is somewhat more serious. Formal counseling sessions should be held on a positive note, be conducted by the employee's immediate supervisor or higher authority, and be correctively advisory in nature. This step is also not considered discipline but is documented on a form and is considered a more significant course of action than an Informal Counseling Session.

Written Reprimand Level One

This is the first official disciplinary step in the hierarchy. The member is given a document that outlines the violation(s) of policy, discusses consequences for future violations, and it 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 policy violation is significant enough.

Written Reprimand Level Two

A Written Reprimand Level Two is similar to a Written Reprimand Level One, but is given for more significant violations of policy and may be given with other higher forms of disciplinary action such as, forfeiture of leave time, reduction of pay, suspension without pay and/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

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

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.

RTR documentation and review

JSO members are required to complete an RTR report in accordance with policy following a use of force incident. This report is reviewed by the member’s chain‐of‐command and by the Professional Oversight Unit. RTR reports are subject to further review by the Director of Personnel & Professional Standards, the Response to Resistance Review Board, and/or the Internal Affairs Unit, to ensure compliance with JSO policy and training. The Homicide Cold Case Unit responds and conducts a criminal investigation for all incidents involving an officer discharging a firearm at an individual.

Training

The agency conducts annual training on the applications of all types of force, as well as additional specific training as needed. The JSO Training Academy and the Professional Oversight Unit monitor trends in the agency, and in other agencies, to ensure JSO policy and training represents national best practice standards. Training is conducted using a variety of methods, including: - Basic law enforcement training classes - Annual in‐service training for officers and supervisors - Bi‐annual firearms requalification and training - Monthly roll call training - Specialized classes offered to officers for advanced training, including Defensive Tactics and Understanding and Articulating Use of Force Incidents - Remedial training for officers who have demonstrated a deficiency in a specific area

Complaint intake and routing

Complaints against members of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office are accepted from any source and forwarded to the Internal Affairs Unit. The Internal Affairs Unit conducts a preliminary review of each complaint and all evidence/documentation associated with the complaint. Complaints involving allegations of misconduct are either forwarded to the member’s supervisor for further investigation (when the allegation is of minor misconduct) or are investigated by an Internal Affairs detective (when the allegation is of serious misconduct).

Professional Oversight Unit responsibilities

The Professional Oversight Unit (POU) is responsible for overseeing administrative cases related to response to resistance (RTR) incidents, JSO vehicle crashes/incidents, and vehicle pursuits, as well as facilitating the operation of the Response to Resistance Review Board, Safety Review Board, Personnel Early Intervention Program, and all process improvement projects for the agency. By having this additional layer of administrative review, JSO can continue to ensure members comply with policy, training, and national standards. The Professional Oversight Unit will continue to review incidents and determine if any modifications to training, policy, practices, or equipment are needed.