JSO 2023 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. 2

  738/26,855 = 2.748%; report states 2%. This is not conventional nearest-whole-percent rounding. Preserve published value; numerator linkage and method are not explained.

• Source consistency · p. 3

  2023 percentages use 1,083 incidents rather than the sum of 1,509 technique entries. The 2022 report used its technique-entry total; directly comparing published percentages across these years is misleading. Physical force 346/1,083 = 31.948%, reported 31.9%.

• Source consistency · p. 4

  Four protection-category counts sum to 914, or 84.4% of 1,083, matching narrative. Multiple reasons are allowed, so this is not necessarily a distinct incident union.

• Source consistency · p. 4

  Narrative says under 35, while suspect 63.5% corresponds to ages through 35 inclusive (485/764). Inmate 68.4% equals the sum of displayed bins through 35; counts 806/1,179 round to 68.4%. Exact under-35 counts unavailable (pp. 4–5).

• Source consistency · p. 5

  Suspect chart has 507 entries versus 498 injured suspects; inmate chart has 947 entries versus 1,005 injured inmates. No reconciliation provided. Not-applicable/other categories present in 2022 are absent; absence is not evidence of zero (pp. 5–6).

• Source consistency · p. 4

  Approximately 99% nonfatal statement has unspecified denominator. Nine deaths among all 764 suspects imply 98.82% nonfatal, compared with 98.19% among 498 injured suspects.

• Source consistency · p. 6

  Activity chart totals 439 versus 458 officers and 354 incidents; source does not explain population difference.

• Source consistency · p. 8

  Listed dispositions sum to 296 versus 690 complaints requiring further investigation. Source excludes active and non-administratively-investigated cases but does not allocate the 394 difference.

• Source consistency · p. 8

  299 actions versus 199 sustained cases are not a one-to-one comparison: report explicitly allows multiple actions and includes investigations initiated before 2023.

• Source consistency · p. 9

  25 formal dispositions + 135 no-formal-investigation allegations + 4 active investigations reconcile to 164. Do not assign formal dispositions to initial-review allegations.

Definitions

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

Response to Resistance (RTR) Incident

Necessary reasonable force during official duties requiring a report when a firearm is discharged; an intermediate weapon or chemical irritant is used on a person or animal; SWAT specialty weapon is used outside a SWAT incident; CEW is intentionally deployed in probe or touch-stun mode; REACT/Band-It is activated; physical force causes or allegedly causes injury; injury or unconsciousness is observed after force; jail admission is rejected for alleged force injuries; injury from force is alleged after admission; or a supervisor determines a report is appropriate.

Use of Force

Agency-approved techniques establishing physical control of a suspect resisting lawful custody: CEW (Taser); chemical irritants such as OC; agency-issued/approved firearms; intermediate batons or specialty impact weapons; physical or weaponless control, restraints, transporters, pain compliance, takedowns and counter moves.

Overall force frequency

Report states RTR occurred in less than 1% of 758,871 calls for service and in 2% of 26,855 arrests. Police RTR total is 738; the reported arrest percentage is retained with a consistency note.

Multiple techniques and justifications

The report permits multiple reasons per incident, so chart totals can exceed RTR incident counts. Technique-chart footnotes also use the wording multiple reasons.

Documentation and review of RTR incidents

Officers submit RTR reports under policy. Responding supervisors’ chain of command and POU review reports, with possible review by the Personnel and Professional Standards Director, RTR Review Board and Internal Affairs. JSO Cold Case Unit and State Attorney’s Office conduct criminal investigations for all officer-involved shootings.

Training

Annual force training and advanced opportunities are supported by Training Academy and POU trend monitoring. Methods include basic law-enforcement and corrections classes, annual in-service training, bi-annual firearms qualification/training, monthly roll call, specialized defensive-tactics and articulation classes, and remedial training.

Complaint intake and investigation

Complaints are accepted from any source and forwarded to Internal Affairs for preliminary evidence review. Minor misconduct is referred to supervisors; serious misconduct is investigated by Internal Affairs detectives. Dispositions apply to individual allegations.

Unfounded

Investigation finds the allegation false or unsupported by facts.

Exonerated

The incident occurred, but employee actions were lawful and proper.

Not Sustained

Evidence is insufficient to prove or disprove misconduct.

Sustained

A preponderance of evidence proves the employee committed the alleged misconduct.

Training as corrective action

Additional training addresses deficiencies, may accompany other actions, and is not discipline.

Informal Counseling Session

Positive corrective supervisory discussion may clarify procedure, recommend training or counseling, suggest improvement or orally admonish. No written documentation is required and it is not discipline.

Formal Counseling Session

Documented supervisory discussion of improper behavior and needed improvements, generally after informal communication fails or for more serious conduct. Corrective rather than disciplinary.

Written Reprimand Level One

First official disciplinary step. Written policy violations and consequences remain active for three years. May follow unsuccessful training/counseling or be imposed directly for a significant violation.

Written Reprimand Level Two

For more significant violations; may accompany forfeited leave, reduced pay, unpaid suspension or demotion.

Suspension or Demotion

Failure to respond to reprimands or serious misconduct can lead to unpaid suspension or demotion to a previously held rank.

Termination

Particularly serious or repeated policy violations without improvement may result in separation.

Complaint disposition scope

Totals exclude investigations still active and complaints not warranting administrative investigation.

Corrective and disciplinary action scope

A sustained complaint may result in more than one action. Counts also include administrative investigations that began before 2023.

Bias-based profiling

Intentional or unintentional application of personal, societal or organizational biases when the sole reason for a decision or law-enforcement action is race, ethnicity, background, gender, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, age, culture or another personal characteristic, rather than observed behavior or identified criminal activity.

Unnecessary force initial review

135 allegations were not formally investigated after preliminary review of information such as body-worn camera or other video that the report states clearly showed officers were within policy; four investigations remained active.

Professional Oversight Unit responsibilities

POU oversees administrative review of RTR, JSO vehicle crashes/incidents and pursuits; facilitates RTR and Safety Review Boards, Personnel Early Intervention Program and process improvement; evaluates needs for changes to training, policy, practices and equipment.

Possible explanations for increased assaults

Report suggests increased citywide calls, manpower reallocation to higher-crime areas and improved reporting parameters as possible reasons for the increase in officer-assault incidents. These are proposed explanations, not established causal findings.