"In 2015, The Washington Post began to log every fatal shooting by an on-duty police officer in the United States. In that time there have been more than 5,000 such shootings recorded by The Post. After Michael Brown, an unarmed Black man, was killed in 2014 by police in Ferguson, Mo., a Post investigation found that the FBI undercounted fatal police shootings by more than half. This is because reporting by police departments is voluntary and many departments fail to do so. The Washington Post’s data relies primarily on news accounts, social media postings, and police reports. Analysis of more than five years of data reveals that the number and circumstances of fatal shootings and the overall demographics of the victims have remained relatively constant..." SOURCE ==> Washington Post Article

For more information about this story

This dataset has been prepared by The Washington Post (they keep updating it on runtime) with every fatal shooting in the United States by a police officer in the line of duty since Jan. 1, 2015.

2016 PoliceKillingUS DATASET
2017 PoliceKillingUS DATASET
2018 PoliceKillingUS DATASET
2019 PoliceKillingUS DATASET
2020 PoliceKillingUS DATASET

Features at the Dataset:

The file fatal-police-shootings-data.csv contains data about each fatal shooting in CSV format. The file can be downloaded at this URL. Each row has the following variables:

• id: a unique identifier for each victim
• name: the name of the victim
• date: the date of the fatal shooting in YYYY-MM-DD format
• manner_of_death: shot, shot and Tasered
• armed: indicates that the victim was armed with some sort of implement that a police officer believed could inflict harm
  • undetermined: it is not known whether or not the victim had a weapon
  • unknown: the victim was armed, but it is not known what the object was
  • unarmed: the victim was not armed
• age: the age of the victim
• gender: the gender of the victim. The Post identifies victims by the gender they identify with if reports indicate that it differs from their biological sex.
  • M: Male
  • F: Female
  • None: unknown
• race:
  • W: White, non-Hispanic
  • B: Black, non-Hispanic
  • A: Asian
  • N: Native American
  • H: Hispanic
  • O: Other
  • None: unknown
• city: the municipality where the fatal shooting took place. Note that in some cases this field may contain a county name if a more specific municipality is unavailable or unknown.
• state: two-letter postal code abbreviation
• signs of mental illness: News reports have indicated the victim had a history of mental health issues, expressed suicidal intentions or was experiencing mental distress at the time of the shooting.
• threat_level: The threat_level column was used to flag incidents for the story by Amy Brittain in October 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/10/24/on-duty-under-fire/ As described in the story, the general criteria for the attack label was that there was the most direct and immediate threat to life. That would include incidents where officers or others were shot at, threatened with a gun, attacked with other weapons or physical force, etc. The attack category is meant to flag the highest level of threat. The other and undetermined categories represent all remaining cases. Other includes many incidents where officers or others faced significant threats.
• flee: News reports have indicated the victim was moving away from officers
  • Foot
  • Car
  • Not fleeing

The threat column and the fleeing column are not necessarily related. For example, there is an incident in which the suspect is fleeing and at the same time turns to fire at gun at the officer. Also, attacks represent a status immediately before fatal shots by police while fleeing could begin slightly earlier and involve a chase. - body_camera: News reports have indicated an officer w...

This dataset contains information on fatal police deaths in the United States. The data includes the victim's rank, name, department, date of death, and cause of death. The data spans from 1791 to the present day. This dataset will be updated on monthly basis. Data Scrapped from this website :- https://www.odmp.org/

New Version Features -> With the new web scrapper I have upgraded dataset with more information. 1) The new dataset version is "police_deaths_USA_v6.csv" and "k9_deaths_USA_v6.csv". 2) Splitted the dataset into 2 different datasets 1 for Human Unit and other for K9 Unit. 3) Check out the new web scrapper code in this file "final_scrapper_program_with_comments.ipynb". 4) Also added the correction file which is needed to adjust some data points from K9 dataset. 5) Extended data of Human Unit dataset to 13 Features. 6) Extended data of K9 Unit dataset to 14 Features.

The police_deaths dataset contains 13 variables:

1) Rank -> Rank assigned or achieved by the police throughout their tenure.

2) Name -> The name of the person.

3) Age -> Age of the person.

4) End_Of_Watch -> The death date on which the the person declared as dead.

5) Day_Of_Week -> The day of the week [Sunday, Monday, etc.].

6) Cause -> The cause of the death.

7) Department -> The department's name where the person works.

8) State -> The state where the department is situated.

9) Tour -> The Duration of there Tenure.

10) Badge -> Badge of the person.

11) Weapon -> The Weapon by which the officer has been killed.

12) Offender -> Offender / Killer this says what happened to the offender after the incident was he/she [Arrested, Killed, etc.].

13) Summary -> Summary of the police officer and also the summary of the incident of what happened ? How he/she died ?, etc.

The k9_deaths dataset contains 14 variables:

1) Rank -> Rank assigned or achieved by the K9 throughout their tenure.

2) Name -> The name of the K9.

3) Breed -> Breed of the K9.

4) Gender -> Gender of the K9.

5) Age -> Age of the K9.

6) End_Of_Watch -> The death date on which the the person declared as dead.

7) Day_Of_Week -> The day of the week [Sunday, Monday, etc.].

8) Cause -> The cause of the death.

9) Department -> The department's name where the K9 was assigned.

10) State -> The state where the department is situated.

11) Tour -> The Duration of there Tenure.

12) Weapon -> The Weapon by which the officer has been killed.

13) Offender -> Offender / Killer this says what happened to the offender after the incident was he/she [Arrested, Killed, etc.].

14) Summary -> Summary of the K9 dog and also the summary of the incident of what happened ? How he/she died ?, etc.

Acknowledgements:

The original dataset was collected by FiveThirtyEight and it contains police death data from 1791 to 2016. Here is the link -> https://data.world/fivethirtyeight/police-deaths.

The reason I made this dataset is because it had not been updated since 2016 and the scrapping script was outdated, so I decided to make a new scrapper and update the dataset till present. I got this idea from the FiveThirtyEight group and a fellow kaggler, Satoshi Datamoto, who uploaded the dataset on kaggle. Thank you for inspiration.

Tableau Visualization link :- https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/mayuresh.koli/viz/USALawEnforcementLineofDutyDeaths/main_dashboard

Law Enforcement Locations:Any location where sworn officers of a law enforcement agency are regularly based or stationed. Law Enforcement agencies "are publicly funded and employ at least one full-time or part-time sworn officer with general arrest powers". This is the definition used by the US Department of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics (DOJ-BJS) for their Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. Although LEMAS only includes non Federal Agencies, this dataset includes locations for federal, state, local, and special jurisdiction law enforcement agencies.

Law enforcement agencies include, but are not limited to, municipal police, county sheriffs, state police, school police, park police, railroad police, federal law enforcement agencies, departments within non law enforcement federal agencies charged with law enforcement (e.g., US Postal Inspectors), and cross jurisdictional authorities (e.g., Port Authority Police).

In general, the requirements and training for becoming a sworn law enforcement officer are set by each state. Law Enforcement agencies themselves are not chartered or licensed by their state. County, city, and other government authorities within each state are usually empowered by their state law to setup or disband Law Enforcement agencies. Generally, sworn Law Enforcement officers must report which agency they are employed by to the state.

Although TGS's intention is to only include locations associated with agencies that meet the above definition, TGS has discovered a few locations that are associated with agencies that are not publicly funded. TGS deleted these locations as we became aware of them, but some may still exist in this dataset.

Personal homes, administrative offices, and temporary locations are intended to be excluded from this dataset; however, some personal homes of constables are included due to the fact that many constables work out of their homes.

TGS has made a concerted effort to include all local police; county sheriffs; state police and/or highway patrol; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Land Management; Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Park Police; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

This dataset is comprised completely of license free data.

FBI entities are intended to be excluded from this dataset, but a few may be included.

The Law Enforcement dataset and the Correctional Institutions dataset were merged into one working file. TGS processed as one file and then separated for delivery purposes.

With the merge of the Law Enforcement and the Correctional Institutions datasets, the NAICS Codes & Descriptions were assigned based on the facility's main function which was determined by the entity's name, facility type, web research, and state supplied data. In instances where the entity's primary function is both law enforcement and corrections, the NAICS Codes and Descriptions are assigned based on the dataset in which the record is located (i.e., a facility that serves as both a Sheriff's Office and as a jail is designated as [NAICSDESCR]="SHERIFFS' OFFICES (EXCEPT COURT FUNCTIONS ONLY)" in the Law Enforcement layer and as [NAICSDESCR]="JAILS (EXCEPT PRIVATE OPERATION OF)" in the Correctional Institutions layer).

Records with "-DOD" appended to the end of the [NAME] value are located on a military base, as defined by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) military installations and military range boundaries.

"#" and "*" characters were automatically removed from standard fields that TGS populated. Double spaces were replaced by single spaces in these same fields.

Text fields in this dataset have been set to all upper case to facilitate consistent database engine search results.

All diacritics (e.g., the German umlaut or the Spanish tilde) have been replaced with their closest equivalent English character to facilitate use with database systems that may not support diacritics.

The currentness of this dataset is indicated by the [CONTDATE] field. Based on the values in this field, the oldest record dates from 12/07/2006 and the newest record dates from 10/23/2009Use Cases: 1. An assessment of whether or not the total police capability in a given area is adequate.

1. A list of resources to draw upon in surrounding areas when local resources have temporarily been overwhelmed by a disaster - route analysis can help to determine those entities who are able to respond the quickest.

2. A resource for emergency management planning purposes.

3. A resource for catastrophe response to aid in the retrieval of equipment by outside responders in order to deal with the disaster.

4. A resource for situational awareness planning and response for federal government events.

These data on 19th- and early 20th-century police department and arrest behavior were collected between 1975 and 1978 for a study of police and crime in the United States. Raw and aggregated time-series data are presented in Parts 1 and 3 on 23 American cities for most years during the period 1860-1920. The data were drawn from annual reports of police departments found in the Library of Congress or in newspapers and legislative reports located elsewhere. Variables in Part 1, for which the city is the unit of analysis, include arrests for drunkenness, conditional offenses and homicides, persons dismissed or held, police personnel, and population. Part 3 aggregates the data by year and reports some of these variables on a per capita basis, using a linear interpolation from the last decennial census to estimate population. Part 2 contains data for 267 United States cities for the period 1880-1890 and was generated from the 1880 federal census volume, REPORT ON THE DEFECTIVE, DEPENDENT, AND DELINQUENT CLASSES, published in 1888, and from the 1890 federal census volume, SOCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES. Information includes police personnel and expenditures, arrests, persons held overnight, trains entering town, and population.

Law Enforcement Locations Any location where sworn officers of a law enforcement agency are regularly based or stationed. Law Enforcement agencies "are publicly funded and employ at least one full-time or part-time sworn officer with general arrest powers". This is the definition used by the US Department of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics (DOJ-BJS) for their Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. Although LEMAS only includes non Federal Agencies, this dataset includes locations for federal, state, local, and special jurisdiction law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies include, but are not limited to, municipal police, county sheriffs, state police, school police, park police, railroad police, federal law enforcement agencies, departments within non law enforcement federal agencies charged with law enforcement (e.g., US Postal Inspectors), and cross jurisdictional authorities (e.g., Port Authority Police). In general, the requirements and training for becoming a sworn law enforcement officer are set by each state. Law Enforcement agencies themselves are not chartered or licensed by their state. County, city, and other government authorities within each state are usually empowered by their state law to setup or disband Law Enforcement agencies. Generally, sworn Law Enforcement officers must report which agency they are employed by to the state. Although TGS's intention is to only include locations associated with agencies that meet the above definition, TGS has discovered a few locations that are associated with agencies that are not publicly funded. TGS deleted these locations as we became aware of them, but some may still exist in this dataset. Personal homes, administrative offices, and temporary locations are intended to be excluded from this dataset; however, some personal homes are included due to the fact that the New Mexico Mounted Police work out of their homes. TGS has made a concerted effort to include all local police; county sheriffs; state police and/or highway patrol; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Land Management; Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Park Police; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This dataset is comprised completely of license free data. FBI entities are intended to be excluded from this dataset, but a few may be included. The Law Enforcement dataset and the Correctional Institutions dataset were merged into one working file. TGS processed as one file and then separated for delivery purposes. With the merge of the Law Enforcement and the Correctional Institutions datasets, the NAICS Codes & Descriptions were assigned based on the facility's main function which was determined by the entity's name, facility type, web research, and state supplied data. In instances where the entity's primary function is both law enforcement and corrections, the NAICS Codes and Descriptions are assigned based on the dataset in which the record is located (i.e., a facility that serves as both a Sheriff's Office and as a jail is designated as [NAICSDESCR]="SHERIFFS' OFFICES (EXCEPT COURT FUNCTIONS ONLY)" in the Law Enforcement layer and as [NAICSDESCR]="JAILS (EXCEPT PRIVATE OPERATION OF)" in the Correctional Institutions layer). Records with "-DOD" appended to the end of the [NAME] value are located on a military base, as defined by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) military installations and military range boundaries. "#" and "*" characters were automatically removed from standard fields that TGS populated. Double spaces were replaced by single spaces in these same fields. Text fields in this dataset have been set to all upper case to facilitate consistent database engine search results. All diacritics (e.g., the German umlaut or the Spanish tilde) have been replaced with their closest equivalent English character to facilitate use with database systems that may not support diacritics. The currentness of this dataset is indicated by the [CONTDATE] field. Based on the values in this field, the oldest record dates from 08/14/2006 and the newest record dates from 10/23/2009

This data was obtained from https://mappingpoliceviolence.us/.

Mapping Police Violence is a 501(c)(3) organization that publishes the most comprehensive and up-to-date data on police violence in America to support transformative change.

This is a database set on openly sharing information on police violence in America.

Some information on this data according to their website: Our data has been meticulously sourced from official police use of force data collection programs in states like California, Texas and Virginia, combined with nationwide data from The Gun Violence Archive and the Fatal Encounters database, two impartial crowdsourced databases. We've also done extensive original research to further improve the quality and completeness of the data; searching social media, obituaries, criminal records databases, police reports and other sources to identify the race of 90 percent of all victims in the database.

We believe the data represented on this site is the most comprehensive accounting of people killed by police since 2013. Note that the Mapping Police Violence database is more comprehensive than the Washington Post police shootings database: while WaPo only tracks cases where people are fatally shot by on-duty police officers, our database includes additional incidents such as cases where police kill someone through use of a chokehold, baton, taser or other means as well as cases such as killings by off-duty police. A recent report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated approximately 1,200 people were killed by police between June, 2015 and May, 2016. Our database identified 1,100 people killed by police over this time period. While there are undoubtedly police killings that are not included in our database (namely, those that go unreported by the media), these estimates suggest that our database captures 92% of the total number of police killings that have occurred since 2013. We hope these data will be used to provide greater transparency and accountability for police departments as part of the ongoing work to end police violence in America.

The purpose of the study was to investigate how and why injuries occur to police and citizens during use of force events. The research team conducted a national survey (Part 1) of a stratified random sample of United States law enforcement agencies regarding the deployment of, policies for, and training with less lethal technologies. Finalized surveys were mailed in July 2006 to 950 law enforcement agencies, and a total of 518 law enforcement agencies provided information on less lethal force generally and on their deployment and policies regarding conducted energy devices (CEDs) in particular. A total of 292 variables are included in the National Use of Force Survey Data (Part 1) including items about weapons deployment, force policies, training, force reporting/review, force incidents and outcomes, and conducted energy devices (CEDs). Researchers also collected agency-supplied use of force data from law enforcement agencies in Richland County, South Carolina; Miami-Dade, Florida; and Seattle, Washington; to identify individual and situational predictors of injuries to officers and citizens during use of force events. The Richland County, South Carolina Data (Part 2) include 441 use-of-force reports from January 2005 through July 2006. Part 2 contains 17 variables including whether the officer or suspect was injured, 8 measures of officer force, 3 measures of suspect resistance, the number of witnesses and officers present at each incident, and the number of suspects that resisted or assaulted officers for each incident. The Miami-Dade County, Florida Data (Part 3) consist of 762 use-of-force incidents that occurred between January 2002 and May 2006. Part 3 contains 15 variables, including 4 measures of officer force, the most serious resistance on the part of the suspect, whether the officer or suspect was injured, whether the suspect was impaired by drugs or alcohol, the officer's length of service in years, and several demographic variables pertaining to the suspect and officer. The Seattle, Washington Data (Part 4) consist of 676 use-of-force incidents that occurred between December 1, 2005, as 15 variables, including 3 measures of officer force, whether the suspect or officer was injured, whether the suspect was impaired by drugs or alcohol, whether the suspect used, or threatened to use, physical force against the officer(s), and several demographic variables relating to the suspect and officer(s). The researchers obtained use of force survey data from several large departments representing different types of law enforcement agencies (municipal, county, sheriff's department) in different states. The research team combined use of force data from multiple agencies into a single dataset. This Multiagency Use of Force Data (Part 5) includes 24,928 use-of-force incidents obtained from 12 law enforcement agencies from 1998 through 2007. Part 5 consists a total of 21 variables, including the year the incident took place, demographic variables relating to the suspect, the type of force used by the officer, whether the suspect or officer was injured, and 5 measures of the department's policy regarding the use of CEDs and pepper spray. Lastly, longitudinal data were also collected for the Orlando, Florida and Austin, Texas police departments. The Orlando, Florida Longitudinal Data (Part 6) comprise 4,222 use-of-force incidents aggregated to 108 months -- a 9 year period from 1998 through 2006. Finally, the Austin, Texas Longitudinal Data (Part 7) include 6,596 force incidents aggregated over 60 months- a 5 year period from 2002 through 2006. Part 6 and Part 7 are comprised of seven variables documenting whether a Taser was implemented, the number of suspects and officers injured in a month, the number of force incidents per month, and the number of CEDs uses per month.

This study surveyed police chiefs and data analysts in order to determine the use of data in police departments. The surveys were sent to 1,379 police agencies serving populations of at least 25,000. The survey sample for this study was selected from the 2000 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. All police agencies serving populations of at least 25,000 were selected from the LEMAS database for inclusion. Separate surveys were sent for completion by police chiefs and data analysts. Surveys were used to gather information on data sharing and integration efforts to identify the needs and capacities for data usage in local law enforcement agencies. The police chief surveys focused on five main areas of interest: use of data, personnel response to data collection, the collection and reporting of incident-based data, sharing data, and the providing of statistics to the community and media. Like the police chief surveys, the data analyst surveys focused on five main areas of interest: use of data, agency structures and resources, data for strategies, data sharing and outside assistance, and incident-based data. The final total of police chief surveys included in the study is 790, while 752 data analyst responses are included.

Information found in this report follow the Uniformed Crime Reporting guidelines established by the FBI for LEOKA.

Key code for Race:

A- Asian/Pacific Island, Non-Hispanic B- African American, Non-Hispanic C- Hawaiian/Other Pacific Island, Hispanic H- Hawaiian/Other Pacific Island, Non-Hispanic I- Indian/Alaskan Native, Non-Hispanic K- African American, Hispanic L- Caucasian, Hispanic N- Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic P- Asian/Pacific Island, Hispanic S- Asian, Non-Hispanic T- Asian, Hispanic U- Unknown W- Caucasian, Non-Hispanic

Key Code for Reading Districts:

Example: LB519

L for Law call or incident B stands for Bloomington 5 is the district or beat where incident occurred All numbers following represents a grid sector.

Disclaimer: The Bloomington Police Department takes great effort in making open data as accurate as possible, but there is no avoiding the introduction of errors in this process, which relies on data provided by many people and that cannot always be verified. Information contained in this dataset may change over a period of time. The Bloomington Police Department is not responsible for any error or omission from this data, or for the use or interpretation of the results of any research conducted.

A list of all NYPD officers, as reported to CCRB by NYPD based on NYPD's roster, and a count of any complaints they have received since the year 2000. The dataset is part of a database of all public police misconduct records the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) maintains on complaints against New York Police Department uniformed members of service received in CCRB's jurisdiction since the year 2000, when CCRB's database was first built. This data is published as four tables: Civilian Complaint Review Board: Police Officers Civilian Complaint Review Board: Complaints Against Police Officers Civilian Complaint Review Board: Allegations Against Police Officers Civilian Complaint Review Board: Penalties A single complaint can include multiple allegations, and those allegations may include multiple subject officers and multiple complainants. Public records exclude complaints and allegations that were closed as Mediated, Mediation Attempted, Administrative Closure, Conciliated (for some complaints prior to the year 2000), or closed as Other Possible Misconduct Noted. This database is inclusive of prior datasets held on Open Data (previously maintained as "Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) - Complaints Received," "Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) - Complaints Closed," and "Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) - Allegations Closed") but includes information and records made public by the June 2020 repeal of New York Civil Rights law 50-a, which precipitated a full revision of what CCRB data could be considered public.

In 2016, there were approximately 132,000 full-time federal law enforcement officers who were authorized to make arrests and carry firearms in the United States and its territories. This data collection comes from the Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers (CFLEO) and describes the agencies, functions, sex, and race of these officers. The data cover federal officers with arrest and firearm authority in both supervisory and non-supervisory roles employed as of September 30, 2016. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) administered the CFLEO to 86 federal agencies employing officers with arrest and firearm authority. The data do not include officers stationed in foreign countries and also exclude officers in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Content

Police Residence

This folder contains data behind the story Most Police Don’t Live In The Cities They Serve.

Includes the cities with the 75 largest police forces, with the exception of Honolulu for which data is not available. All calculations are based on data from the U.S. Census.

The Census Bureau numbers are potentially going to differ from other counts for three reasons:

1. The census category for police officers also includes sheriffs, transit police and others who might not be under the same jurisdiction as a city’s police department proper. The census category won’t include private security officers.
2. The census data is estimated from 2006 to 2010; police forces may have changed in size since then.
3. There is always a margin of error in census numbers; they are estimates, not complete counts.

How to read police-locals.csv

Note: When a cell contains ** it means that there are fewer than 100 police officers of that race serving that city.

Context

This is a dataset from FiveThirtyEight hosted on their GitHub. Explore FiveThirtyEight data using Kaggle and all of the data sources available through the FiveThirtyEight organization page!

• Update Frequency: This dataset is updated daily.

Acknowledgements

This dataset is maintained using GitHub's API and Kaggle's API.

This dataset is distributed under the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

This set of raw data contains information from Bloomington Police Department cases, specifically it identified cases where officers have fired a gun at a suspect.

**Please note that this particular dataset contains no data. As of current date, the Bloomington Police Department has had no officer involved shootings to report. **

Key code for Race:

• A- Asian/Pacific Island, Non-Hispanic
• B- African American, Non-Hispanic
• I- Indian/Alaskan Native, Non-Hispanic
• K- African American, Hispanic
• L- Caucasian, Hispanic
• N- Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic
• P- Asian/Pacific Island, Hispanic
• U- Unknown
• W- Caucasian, Non-Hispanic

Key Code for Reading Districts:

Example: LB519

• ‘L’ for Law call or incident
• ‘B’ stands for Bloomington
• 5 is the district or beat where incident occurred
• All numbers following represents a grid sector.

A map of the five districts can be located on Raidsonline.com, under the tab labeled ‘Agency Layers’.

Disclaimer: The Bloomington Police Department takes great effort in making all sets of data as accurate as possible, but there is no avoiding the introduction of errors in this process. Information contained in this dataset may change over a period of time. The Bloomington Police Department is not responsible for any error or omission from this data or for the use, or interpretation of the results of any research conducted.

This data collection was undertaken to gather information on the extent of police officers' knowledge of search and seizure law, an issue with important consequences for law enforcement. A specially-produced videotape depicting line duty situations that uniformed police officers frequently encounter was viewed by 478 line uniformed police officers from 52 randomly-selected cities in which search and seizure laws were determined to be no more restrictive than applicable United States Supreme Court decisions. Testing of the police officers occurred in all regions as established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, except for the Pacific region (California, Oregon, and Washington), since search and seizure laws in these states are, in some instances, more restrictive than United States Supreme Court decisions. No testing occurred in cities with populations under 10,000 because of budget limitations. Fourteen questions to which the officers responded were presented in the videotape. Each police officer also completed a questionnaire that included questions on demographics, training, and work experience, covering their age, sex, race, shift worked, years of police experience, education, training on search and seizure law, effectiveness of various types of training instructors and methods, how easily they could obtain advice about search and seizure questions they encountered, and court outcomes of search and seizure cases in which they were involved. Police department representatives completed a separate questionnaire providing department characteristics and information on search and seizure training and procedures, such as the number of sworn officers, existence of general training and the number of hours required, existence of in-service search and seizure training and the number of hours and testing required, existence of policies and procedures on search and seizure, and means of advice available to officers about search and seizure questions. These data comprise Part 1. For purposes of comparison and interpretation of the police officer test scores, question responses were also obtained from other sources. Part 2 contains responses from 36 judges from states with search and seizure laws no more restrictive than the United States Supreme Court decisions, as well as responses from a demographic and work-experience questionnaire inquiring about their age, law school attendance, general judicial experience, and judicial experience and education specific to search and seizure laws. All geographic regions except New England and the Pacific were represented by the judges. Part 3, Comparison Data, contains answers to the 14 test questions only, from 15 elected district attorneys, 6 assistant district attorneys, the district attorney in another city and 11 of his assistant district attorneys, a police attorney with expertise in search and seizure law, 24 police academy trainees with no previous police work experience who were tested before search and seizure law training, a second group of 17 police academy trainees -- some with police work experience but no search and seizure law training, 55 law enforcement officer trainees from a third academy tested immediately after search and seizure training, 7 technical college students with no previous education or training on search and seizure law, and 27 university criminal justice course students, also with no search and seizure law education or training.

In 1996, the Bureau of Justice Statistics sponsored a pretest of a survey instrument designed to compile data on citizen contacts with police, including contacts in which police use force. The survey, which involved interviews (both face-to-face and by phone) carried out by the United States Census Bureau, was conducted as a special supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), an ongoing household survey of the American public that elicits information concerning recent crime victimization experiences. Questions asked in the supplement covered reasons for contact with police officer(s), characteristics of the officer, weapons used by the officer, whether there were any injuries involved in the confrontation between the household member and the officer, whether drugs were involved in the incident, type of offense the respondent was charged with, and whether any citizen action was taken. Demographic variables include race, sex, and age.

Law Enforcement Locations Any location where sworn officers of a law enforcement agency are regularly based or stationed. Law Enforcement agencies "are publicly funded and employ at least one full-time or part-time sworn officer with general arrest powers". This is the definition used by the US Department of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics (DOJ-BJS) for their Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. Although LEMAS only includes non Federal Agencies, this dataset includes locations for federal, state, local, and special jurisdiction law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies include, but are not limited to, municipal police, county sheriffs, state police, school police, park police, railroad police, federal law enforcement agencies, departments within non law enforcement federal agencies charged with law enforcement (e.g., US Postal Inspectors), and cross jurisdictional authorities (e.g., Port Authority Police). In general, the requirements and training for becoming a sworn law enforcement officer are set by each state. Law Enforcement agencies themselves are not chartered or licensed by their state. County, city, and other government authorities within each state are usually empowered by their state law to setup or disband Law Enforcement agencies. Generally, sworn Law Enforcement officers must report which agency they are employed by to the state. Although TGS's intention is to only include locations associated with agencies that meet the above definition, TGS has discovered a few locations that are associated with agencies that are not publicly funded. TGS deleted these locations as we became aware of them, but some may still exist in this dataset. Personal homes, administrative offices, and temporary locations are intended to be excluded from this dataset; however, some personal homes of constables are included due to the fact that many constables work out of their homes. TGS has made a concerted effort to include all local police; county sheriffs; state police and/or highway patrol; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Land Management; Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Park Police; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This dataset is comprised completely of license free data. FBI entities are intended to be excluded from this dataset, but a few may be included. The Law Enforcement dataset and the Correctional Institutions dataset were merged into one working file. TGS processed as one file and then separated for delivery purposes. With the merge of the Law Enforcement and the Correctional Institutions datasets, the NAICS Codes & Descriptions were assigned based on the facility's main function which was determined by the entity's name, facility type, web research, and state supplied data. In instances where the entity's primary function is both law enforcement and corrections, the NAICS Codes and Descriptions are assigned based on the dataset in which the record is located (i.e., a facility that serves as both a Sheriff's Office and as a jail is designated as [NAICSDESCR]="SHERIFFS' OFFICES (EXCEPT COURT FUNCTIONS ONLY)" in the Law Enforcement layer and as [NAICSDESCR]="JAILS (EXCEPT PRIVATE OPERATION OF)" in the Correctional Institutions layer). Records with "-DOD" appended to the end of the [NAME] value are located on a military base, as defined by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) military installations and military range boundaries. "#" and "*" characters were automatically removed from standard fields that TGS populated. Double spaces were replaced by single spaces in these same fields. Text fields in this dataset have been set to all upper case to facilitate consistent database engine search results. All diacritics (e.g., the German umlaut or the Spanish tilde) have been replaced with their closest equivalent English character to facilitate use with database systems that may not support diacritics. The currentness of this dataset is indicated by the [CONTDATE] field. Based on the values in this field, the oldest record dates from 04/26/2006 and the newest record dates from 10/19/2009

Between 2008 and 2009, the research team gathered survey data from 458 members of the community (Part 1), 312 police officers (Part 2), and 804 individuals who had voluntary contact (Part 3), and 761 individuals who had involuntary contact (Part 4) with police departments in Dallas, Texas, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Kettering, Ohio, and the Broward County, Florida Sheriff's Office. The surveys were designed to look at nine dimensions of police performance: delivering quality services; fear, safety, and order; ethics and values; legitimacy and customer satisfaction; organizational competence and commitment to high standards; reducing crime and victimization; resource use; responding to offenders; and use of authority. The community surveys included questions about police effectiveness, police professionalism, neighborhood problems, and victimization. The officer surveys had three parts: job satisfaction items, procedural knowledge items, and questions about the culture of integrity. The voluntary police contact and involuntary police contact surveys included questions on satisfaction with the way the police officer or deputy sheriff handled the encounter.

This dataset contains Phoenix Police Department officer demographics as of January 1st of each year starting in 2018. All ranks of sworn employees are included.

Provide your feedback!

Help us improve this site and complete the Open Data Customer Survey.

The primary table for all public data on complaints, including dates, locations and the outcomes of closed complaints received since the year 2000.

The dataset is part of a database of all public police misconduct records the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) maintains on complaints against New York Police Department uniformed members of service received in CCRB's jurisdiction since the year 2000, when CCRB's database was first built. This data is published as four tables:

Civilian Complaint Review Board: Police Officers

Civilian Complaint Review Board: Complaints Against Police Officers

Civilian Complaint Review Board: Allegations Against Police Officers

Civilian Complaint Review Board: Penalties

A single complaint can include multiple allegations, and those allegations may include multiple subject officers and multiple complainants.

Public records exclude complaints and allegations that were closed as Mediated, Mediation Attempted, Administrative Closure, Conciliated (for some complaints prior to the year 2000), or closed as Other Possible Misconduct Noted.

This database is inclusive of prior datasets held on Open Data (previously maintained as "Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) - Complaints Received," "Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) - Complaints Closed," and "Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) - Allegations Closed") but includes information and records made public by the June 2020 repeal of New York Civil Rights law 50-a, which precipitated a full revision of what CCRB data could be considered public.

Splitgraph serves as an HTTP API that lets you run SQL queries directly on this data to power Web applications. For example:

See the Splitgraph documentation for more information.