JSO 2025 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

  Published corrections RTR count 763 excludes nine incidents awaiting review due to an ongoing investigation. It is not a complete final annual count; do not silently add pending incidents to published total or assume associated charts include them.

• Source consistency · p. 4

  Narrative self-or-others percentage 37.1% equals protect-self chart percentage alone. Four protection-category counts sum to 668/763 = 87.55%, but overlap prevents treating their sum as a distinct incident union. Scope of narrative aggregate is unexplained.

• Source consistency · p. 4

  Narrative under-35 percentages correspond to bins through age 35 inclusive: suspects 394/737 = 53.46%; inmates 469/809 = 57.97%. Exact under-35 counts unavailable (pp. 4–5).

• Source consistency · p. 5

  Corrections experience through 10 years is 791/822 = 96.2287%, conventionally 96.2%, versus reported 96.3%, which equals sum of displayed percentages 83.5% and 12.8%.

• Source consistency · p. 5

  597/809 = 73.7948%, conventionally 73.8% at one decimal, versus reported 73.7%. Preserve both count and published percentage.

• Source consistency · p. 5

  Suspect chart totals 503 entries versus 482 injured suspects; inmate chart totals 622 versus 597 injured inmates. Entries are not distinct people, and omitted categories are not assumed zero (pp. 5–6).

• Source consistency · p. 4

  Approximately 97% nonfatal claim does not reconcile with obvious denominators: 11 deaths among 737 suspects implies 98.51% nonfatal; among 482 injured suspects 97.72%; among 713 police RTR incidents 98.46%. Preserve source value without assigning a denominator.

• Source consistency · p. 6

  Activity chart totals 402 versus 405 officers and 328 incidents; source does not explain population difference.

• Source consistency · p. 8

  Listed dispositions total 344 versus 821 complaints requiring further investigation. Exclusions mention active and non-administratively-investigated complaints but do not allocate the difference of 477.

• Source consistency · p. 8

  279 actions versus 197 sustained cases are not a one-to-one comparison: multiple actions are permitted and counts include investigations begun before 2025.

• Source consistency · p. 9

  47 listed dispositions plus 95 no-formal-investigation allegations and seven active investigations reconcile to 149. Do not assign a formal disposition to the 95 initial-review allegations.

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 2025.

Documentation and review of RTR incidents

Officers submit RTR reports under policy. Responding officers’ 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 0.1% of 727,754 calls for service and less than 2.8% of 26,081 arrests. Police RTR total is 713. Bounds are not exact percentages.

Possible explanations for decreased assaults

Report suggests fewer citywide calls for service, reallocation of police resources to higher-call areas, or successful deescalation as possible reasons for fewer officer-assault incidents. 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; Remote Electronic Band 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.

Remedial Training

Additional training addresses demonstrated deficiencies, may accompany other corrective or disciplinary actions, and is not considered discipline.

Unfounded

Investigation finds the allegation false or unsupported by facts.

Unnecessary force initial review

95 allegations were not formally investigated after preliminary information review, including body-worn camera or other video that the report states clearly showed officers were within policy. Seven 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 spray/gel; 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.

Corrections RTR pending-review exclusion

Nine 2025 corrections RTR incidents remain pending review due to an ongoing investigation and are excluded from the 763 incidents reviewed by the Professional Oversight Unit.