JSO 2021 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.

• Source consistency · p. 3

  Police technique counts sum to 504 versus 526 RTR incidents. Source explains that some incidents have none of five force categories. Do not assume mutually exclusive techniques or derive a distinct zero-technique count.

• Source consistency · p. 3

  Corrections technique counts sum to 809 and percentages use 809, not 712 incidents. Narrative describes percentages as incident percentages; zero-category footnote does not explain why chart exceeds incident total.

• Source consistency · p. 4

  87.7% protecting self or others equals the sum of displayed percentages for four overlapping categories. Their counts sum to 624, or 87.6% of 712 rounded to one decimal. Distinct incident union is unknown.

• Source consistency · p. 4

  Narrative states 64.8% of suspects under age 35. Chart bins through age 35 sum to 262/451 (58.1%); this does not substantiate that claim.

• Source consistency · p. 5

  Inmate narrative says under 35, but 72.9% corresponds to bins through age 35 inclusive (531/728). Exact under-35 count cannot be recovered.

• Source consistency · p. 5

  Suspect injury entries sum to 641 versus 388 injured suspects; inmate entries sum to 389 versus 274 injured inmates (p. 6). Charts include not-applicable entries. Do not interpret injury types as unique injured people.

• Source consistency · p. 4

  More-than-99% nonfatal statement does not explicitly identify its denominator. Four deaths among 388 injured suspects would not meet it; four among all 451 suspects would. Preserve the four-death count without assigning a denominator to that claim.

• Source consistency · p. 6

  Assault activity chart totals 174, compared with 191 assault incidents and 239 officers. The report does not reconcile these populations.

• Source consistency · p. 8

  Listed dispositions total 406 versus 568 complaints requiring further investigation. Source excludes active and non-administratively-investigated complaints but does not allocate the 162 difference. Do not infer all 162 were active.

• Source consistency · p. 8

  Corrective/disciplinary action counts total 400 versus 310 sustained cases. The source does not specify mutual exclusivity or case-to-action linkage.

• Source consistency · p. 9

  Four disposition counts total 11; 52 initial-review cases plus six active investigations reconcile to 69. The 52 cases are described jointly as Exonerated/Unfounded and must not be assigned individually to either disposition.

Definitions

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

Response to Resistance (RTR) Incident

Any incident involving the necessary application of a reasonable degree 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 or animal; • A person or animal was exposed to a chemical irritant; • A Special Weapons & Tactics (SWAT) team member used a specialty weapon in a non-SWAT incident; • A Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) was intentionally deployed at a person or animal in “Probe” or “Touch-Stun” mode; • A REACT/Band-It device was activated; • Physical force was applied to 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 application of force, to include loss of consciousness; • A ramming maneuver was used on a vehicle; • An arrestee was rejected admission to the Pretrial Detention Facility (PDF) and directed to the hospital due to alleged injuries sustained from an officer’s application of force; • After an arrestee was granted admission to the PDF, the arrestee alleged an injury was sustained from a officer’s application of force; 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 suspect who is resisting an officer’s lawful attempts to take the suspect into custody. The five categories are: • CEW: Force that involved the use of a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW), commonly referred to as a “Taser”; • Chemical: Force that involved a chemical irritant 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.

Overall force frequency bounds

In 2021, Response to Resistance (RTR) incidents occurred in less than 1% of calls for service and in less than 2% of all arrests made, supporting a minimal occurrence of force in documented police-citizen encounters.

Police technique chart scope

The difference in the data represented in the RTR Agency-Approved Techniques graph (504) and the total number of Police RTR incidents (526) is due to the documentation of an incident where none of the 5 categories of Agency-Approved Force Techniques were applied, such as alleged injury occurring with the application of restraints.

Corrections technique chart scope

The difference in the data represented in the RTR Agency-Approved Techniques graph (809) and the total number of Corrections RTR incidents (712) is due to the documentation of an incident where none of the 5 categories of Agency-Approved Force Techniques were applied, such as alleged injury occurring with the application of restraints.

Multiple force justifications

During RTR incidents, the reason for, or justification of applied force can evolve from police officers attempting to overcome a suspect’s resistance to police officers protecting themselves or others from harm. Therefore, the police officer has the ability to select multiple reasons in the RTR report for their response consistent with RTR reporting parameters.

Documentation and review of RTR incidents

Officers are required to complete an RTR report in accordance with policy following an RTR incident. This report is reviewed by the responding supervisor’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 RTR Review Board, and/or the Internal Affairs Unit, to ensure compliance with agency policy and training. Further, the Homicide/Cold Case Unit conducts a criminal investigation for all officer-involved shooting incidents.

Training

The agency conducts annual training with officers on the application of all types of force, as well as advanced training opportunities. The Training Academy and the Professional Oversight Unit monitor trends in the agency, and in other agencies, to ensure policy and training represents national best practice stand- ards. 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; and • Remedial training for officers who have demonstrated a deficiency in a specific area.

Complaint intake and investigation

Complaints against employees 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 employee’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). Based on the results of the administrative investigation, each allegation of misconduct is given one of the following dispositions:

Unfounded

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

Exonerated

The administrative investigation determined an incident involving alleged misconduct occurred, but the employee’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 prove the employee committed the alleged misconduct.

Policy Revision

The administrative investigation determined the action of the agency or the officer was consistent with agency policy, but the policy requires revision.

Training as corrective action

The employee is given additional training in an area where they have demonstrated one or more deficiencies. Training is positive and correctively advisory in nature. It 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 an employee, which is positive and correctively advisory in nature, and is the first step in bringing about improvements in the employee'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 an employee in which the employee'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 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 employee 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 an employee 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 to an employee 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 an employee has failed to respond to written reprimands or when an employee commits an act of serious misconduct, he may be suspended without pay or, if the employ- ee has achieved supervisory rank, he may be demoted to a previously-held rank. •

Termination

In situations where an employee has committed particularly serious violations of policy, or has committed numerous violations of policy without any improvement in performance, he may be separated from the agency.

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.

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 employees 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.