JSO 2024 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

  2024 explicitly adds a reporting criterion for a restrained subject struck in the head or neck and uses chemical agent instead of chemical irritant. Definition changes may affect comparison with earlier years.

• Source consistency · p. 4

  Four protection-category counts total 714, or 94.1% of 759. Multiple selections are permitted, so this is not necessarily a distinct incident union.

• Source consistency · p. 4

  Narrative under-35 figures align with age bins through 35 inclusive: suspects 515/912 = 56.47% (56.5% conventionally, compared with reported 56.6%, the sum of displayed percentages); inmates 519/815 = 63.68%. Exact under-35 counts unavailable (pp. 4–5).

• Source consistency · p. 5

  Suspect chart totals 598 injury entries versus 564 injured suspects; inmate chart totals 624 entries versus 619 injured inmates. Injury categories must not be treated as unique persons. Absent categories are not assumed zero (pp. 5–6).

• Source consistency · p. 5

  619/815 = 75.9509%, which conventionally rounds to 76.0% at one decimal, rather than the reported 75.9%. Preserve reported figure.

• Source consistency · p. 4

  Approximately 99% nonfatal statement has unspecified denominator: three deaths among 912 suspects implies 99.67% nonfatal, versus 99.47% among 564 injured suspects.

• Source consistency · p. 6

  Activity chart totals 446, compared with 455 officers and 369 incidents. Source does not reconcile these populations.

• Source consistency · p. 8

  Listed dispositions total 418 versus 990 requiring further investigation. Exclusion note mentions active and non-administratively-investigated complaints but does not allocate the difference of 572.

• Source consistency · p. 8

  294 actions versus 250 sustained cases are not a one-to-one comparison: multiple actions are permitted and counts include investigations begun before 2024.

• Source consistency · p. 9

  Listed dispositions total 32. Adding 69 no-formal-investigation allegations and 11 active investigations accounts for 112 of 135, leaving 23 unexplained. Do not assign these to an outcome or infer additional active investigations.

Definitions

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

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.

Complaint disposition scope

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

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.

Corrective and disciplinary action scope

A sustained complaint may result in more than one action. Counts also include administrative investigations that began before 2024.

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.

Exonerated

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

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.

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.

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.

Not Sustained

Evidence is insufficient to prove or disprove misconduct.

Overall force frequency

Report states RTR occurred in less than 1% of 768,176 calls for service and in 3% of 27,348 arrests. Police RTR total is 828.

Possible explanations for increased assaults

Report proposes increased citywide calls for service, manpower reallocation to higher-crime areas, proactive policing and improved reporting parameters as possible explanations. These are proposed explanations, not established causal findings.

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.

Response to Resistance (RTR) Incident

Necessary reasonable force during official duties requiring a report when a firearm is discharged; an intermediate weapon or chemical agent 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; a restrained subject is struck in the head or neck; or a supervisor determines a report is appropriate.

Suspension or Demotion

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

Sustained

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

Termination

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

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.

Training as corrective action

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

Unfounded

Investigation finds the allegation false or unsupported by facts.

Unnecessary force initial review

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

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.

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.