Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 1,173 civilians having been shot, 248 of whom were Black, as of December 2024. In 2023, there were 1,164 fatal police shootings. Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 6.1 fatal shootings per million of the population per year between 2015 and 2024. Police brutality in the U.S. In recent years, particularly since the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, police brutality has become a hot button issue in the United States. The number of homicides committed by police in the United States is often compared to those in countries such as England, where the number is significantly lower. Black Lives Matter The Black Lives Matter Movement, formed in 2013, has been a vocal part of the movement against police brutality in the U.S. by organizing “die-ins”, marches, and demonstrations in response to the killings of black men and women by police. While Black Lives Matter has become a controversial movement within the U.S., it has brought more attention to the number and frequency of police shootings of civilians.

The killing of Tyre Nichols in January 2023 by Memphis Police Officers has reignited debates about police brutality in the United States. Between 2013 and 2024, over 1,000 people have been killed by police in every year. Some of the most infamous examples include the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, and the shooting of Breonna Taylor earlier that year. Within this time period, the most people killed by police in the United States was in 2023, at 1,353 people. Police Violence in the U.S. Police violence is defined as any instance where a police officer’s use of force results in a civilian’s death, regardless of whether it is considered justified by the law. While many people killed by police in the U.S. were shot, other causes of death have included tasers, vehicles, and physical restraints or beatings. In the United States, the rate of police shootings is much higher for Black Americans than it is for any other ethnicity and recent incidents of police killing unarmed Black men and women in the United States have led to widespread protests against police brutality, particularly towards communities of color. America’s Persistent Police Problem Despite increasing visibility surrounding police violence in recent years, police killings have continued to occur in the United States at a consistently high rate. In comparison to other countries, police in the U.S. have killed people at a rate three times higher than police in Canada, and 60 times the rate of police in England. While U.S. police have killed people in almost all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, New Mexico was reported to have the highest rate of people killed by the police in the United States, with 8.03 people per million inhabitants killed by police.

The rate of fatal police shootings in the United States shows large differences based on ethnicity. Among Black Americans, the rate of fatal police shootings between 2015 and December 2024 stood at 6.1 per million of the population per year, while for white Americans, the rate stood at 2.4 fatal police shootings per million of the population per year. Police brutality in the United States Police brutality is a major issue in the United States, but recently saw a spike in online awareness and protests following the murder of George Floyd, an African American who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. Just a few months before, Breonna Taylor was fatally shot in her apartment when Louisville police officers forced entry into her apartment. Despite the repeated fatal police shootings across the country, police accountability has not been adequate according to many Americans. A majority of Black Americans thought that police officers were not held accountable for their misconduct, while less than half of White Americans thought the same. Political opinions Not only are there differences in opinion between ethnicities on police brutality, but there are also major differences between political parties. A majority of Democrats in the United States thought that police officers were not held accountable for their misconduct, while a majority of Republicans that they were held accountable. Despite opposing views on police accountability, both Democrats and Republicans agree that police should be required to be trained in nonviolent alternatives to deadly force.

As of December 31, the U.S. police shot 1,173 people to death in 2024. In 2023, 1,164 people were shot to death by police in the United States. Police treatment Since as early as the 18th century, police brutality has been a significant issue in the United States. Black Americans have been especially marginalized by police officers, as they have faced higher rates of fatal police shootings compared to other ethnicities. Disparities also exist in perceptions of police treatment depending on ethnicity. A majority of Black Americans think that Black and White people do not receive equal police treatment, while more than half of White and Hispanic Americans think the same. Police reform The upsurge in Black Lives Matter protests in response to the killing of Black Americans as a result of police brutality has created a call for police reform. In 2019, it was found that police killings decreased by a quarter in police departments that implemented a policy that requires officers to use all other means before shooting. Since the killing of George Floyd in May 2020, 21 states, including New York and California, have passed bills that focused on police supervision.

As of November 17, New Mexico had the highest rate of people killed by police out of all U.S. states in 2024, with 12.75 people per million inhabitants killed by police in that time period, followed by Wyoming with 12.13 people per million inhabitants killed by police.

As of November 17, 277 Black people were killed by the police in the United States in 2024. This compares to 201 Hispanic people and 445 white people. The rate of police shootings of Black Americans is much higher than any other ethnicity, at 6.2 per million people. This rate stands at 2.8 per million for Hispanic people and 2.4 per million for white people.

The purpose of the study was to better understand the factors associated with police decisions to make an arrest or not in cases of heterosexual partner violence and how these decisions vary across jurisdictions. The study utilized data from three large national datasets: the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) for the year 2003, the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) for the years 2000 and 2003, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services Area Resource File (ARF) for the year 2003. Researchers also developed a database of domestic violence state arrest laws including arrest type (mandatory, discretionary, or preferred) and primary aggressor statutes. Next, the research team merged these four databases into one, with incident being the unit of analysis. As a further step, the research team conducted spatial analysis to examine the impact of spatial autocorrelation in arrest decisions by police organizations on the results of statistical analyses. The dependent variable for this study was arrest outcome, defined as no arrest, single male arrest, single female arrest, and dual arrest for an act of violence against an intimate partner. The primary independent variables were divided into three categories: incident factors, police organizational factors, and community factors.

In the United States, more men than women are shot to death by the police. As of October 22, the U.S. police shot 904 men and 44 women to death in 2024. In 2023, the police shot 1,107 men and 48 women to death.

This dataset contains individual-level homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, including homicide data from 1991 to the present, and non-fatal shooting data from 2010 to the present (2010 is the earliest available year for shooting data). This dataset includes a "GUNSHOT_INJURY_I " column to indicate whether the victimization involved a shooting, showing either Yes ("Y"), No ("N"), or Unknown ("UKNOWN.") For homicides, injury descriptions are available dating back to 1991, so the "shooting" column will read either "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the homicide was a fatal shooting or not. For non-fatal shootings, data is only available as of 2010. As a result, for any non-fatal shootings that occurred from 2010 to the present, the shooting column will read as “Y.” Non-fatal shooting victims will not be included in this dataset prior to 2010; they will be included in the authorized-access dataset, but with "UNKNOWN" in the shooting column. Each row represents a single victimization, i.e., a unique event when an individual became the victim of a homicide or non-fatal shooting. Each row does not represent a unique victim—if someone is victimized multiple times there will be multiple rows for each of those distinct events. The dataset is refreshed daily, but excludes the most recent complete day to allow the Chicago Police Department (CPD) time to gather the best available information. Each time the dataset is refreshed, records can change as CPD learns more about each victimization, especially those victimizations that are most recent. The data on the Mayor's Office Violence Reduction Dashboard is updated daily with an approximately 48-hour lag. As cases are passed from the initial reporting officer to the investigating detectives, some recorded data about incidents and victimizations may change once additional information arises. Regularly updated datasets on the City's public portal may change to reflect new or corrected information. A version of this dataset with additional crime types is available by request. To make a request, please email dataportal@cityofchicago.org with the subject line: Violence Reduction Victims Access Request. Access will require an account on this site, which you may create at https://data.cityofchicago.org/signup. How does this dataset classify victims? The methodology by which this dataset classifies victims of violent crime differs by victimization type: Homicide and non-fatal shooting victims: A victimization is considered a homicide victimization or non-fatal shooting victimization depending on its presence in CPD's homicide victims data table or its shooting victims data table. A victimization is considered a homicide only if it is present in CPD's homicide data table, while a victimization is considered a non-fatal shooting only if it is present in CPD's shooting data tables and absent from CPD's homicide data table. To determine the IUCR code of homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, we defer to the incident IUCR code available in CPD's Crimes, 2001-present dataset (available on the City's open data portal). If the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes dataset is inconsistent with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization, we defer to CPD's Victims dataset. For a criminal homicide, the only sensible IUCR codes are 0110 (first-degree murder) or 0130 (second-degree murder). For a non-fatal shooting, a sensible IUCR code must signify a criminal sexual assault, a robbery, or, most commonly, an aggravated battery. In rare instances, the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes and Victims dataset do not align with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization: In instances where a homicide victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code 0110 or 0130, we set the IUCR code to "01XX" to indicate that the victimization was a homicide but we do not know whether it was a fi

This project provided the first large-scale examination of the police response to intimate partner violence and of the practice known as "dual arrest." The objectives of the project were: (1) to describe the prevalence and context of dual arrest in the United States, (2) to explain the variance in dual arrest rates throughout the United States, (3) to describe dual arrest within the full range of the police response to intimate partner violence, (4) to analyze the factors associated with no arrest, single arrest, and dual arrest, (5) to examine the reasons why women are arrested in intimate partner cases, and (6) to describe how the criminal justice system treats women who have been arrested for domestic violence. Data for the project were collected in two phases. In Phase I, researchers examined all assault and intimidation cases in the year 2000 National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) database (NATIONAL INCIDENT-BASED REPORTING SYSTEM, 2000 [ICPSR 3449]) to investigate the extent to which dual arrest is occurring nationwide, the relationship between incident and offender characteristics, and the effect of state laws on police handling of these cases for all relationship types. Because the NIBRS dataset contained a limited number of incident-specific variables that helped explain divergent arrest practices, in Phase II, researchers collected more detailed information on a subset of NIBRS cases from 25 police departments of varying sizes across four states. This phase of the study was restricted to intimate partner and other domestic violence cases. Additional data were collected for these cases to evaluate court case outcomes and subsequent re-offending. This phase also included an assessment of how closely department policy reflected state law in a larger sample of agencies within five states. The data in Part 1 (Phase I Data) contain 577,862 records from the NIBRS. This includes information related to domestic violence incidents such as the most serious offense against the victim, the most serious victim injury, the assault type, date of incident, and the counts of offenses, offenders, victims, and arrests for the incident. The data also include information related to the parties involved in the incident including demographics for the victim(s) and arrestee(s) and the relationship between victim(s) and arrestee(s). There is also information related to the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred such as population, urban/rural classification, and whether the jurisdiction is located in a metropolitan area. There are also variables pertaining to whether a weapon was used, the date of arrest, and the type of arrest. Also included are variables regarding the police department such as the number of male and female police officers and civilians employed. The data in Part 2 (Phase II Data) contain 4,388 cases and include all of the same variables as those in Part 1. In addition to these variables, there are variables such as whether the offender was on the scene when the police arrived, who reported the incident, the exact nature of injuries suffered by the involved parties, victim and offender substance use, offender demeanor, and presence of children. Also included are variables related to the number of people including police and civilians who were on the scene, the number of people who were questioned, whether there were warrants for the victim(s) or offender(s), whether citations were issued, whether arrests were made, whether any cases were prosecuted, the number of charges filed and against whom, and the sentences for prosecuted cases that resulted in conviction. The data in Part 3 (Police Department Policy Data) contain 282 cases and include variables regarding whether the department had a domestic violence policy, what the department's arrest policy was, whether a police report needed to be made, whether the policy addressed mutual violence, whether the policy instructed how to determine the primary aggressor, and what factors were taken into account in making a decision to arrest. There is also information related to the proportion of arrests involving intimate partners, the proportion of arrests involving other domestics, the proportion of arrests involving acquaintances, and the proportion of arrests involving strangers.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed expect for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) is further information is needed. This collection is composed of archived news articles and court records reporting (n=6,724) on the arrest(s) of law enforcement officers in the United States from 2005-2011. Police crimes are those crimes committed by sworn law enforcement officers given the general powers of arrest at the time the offense was committed. These crimes can occur while the officer is on or off duty and include offenses committed by state, county, municipal, tribal, or special law enforcement agencies.Three distinct but related research questions are addressed in this collection:What is the incidence and prevalence of police officers arrested across the United States? How do law enforcement agencies discipline officers who are arrested?To what degree do police crime arrests correlate with other forms of police misconduct?

This dataset contains aggregate data on violent index victimizations at the quarter level of each year (i.e., January – March, April – June, July – September, October – December), from 2001 to the present (1991 to present for Homicides), with a focus on those related to gun violence. Index crimes are 10 crime types selected by the FBI (codes 1-4) for special focus due to their seriousness and frequency. This dataset includes only those index crimes that involve bodily harm or the threat of bodily harm and are reported to the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Each row is aggregated up to victimization type, age group, sex, race, and whether the victimization was domestic-related. Aggregating at the quarter level provides large enough blocks of incidents to protect anonymity while allowing the end user to observe inter-year and intra-year variation. Any row where there were fewer than three incidents during a given quarter has been deleted to help prevent re-identification of victims. For example, if there were three domestic criminal sexual assaults during January to March 2020, all victims associated with those incidents have been removed from this dataset. Human trafficking victimizations have been aggregated separately due to the extremely small number of victimizations.

This dataset includes a " GUNSHOT_INJURY_I " column to indicate whether the victimization involved a shooting, showing either Yes ("Y"), No ("N"), or Unknown ("UKNOWN.") For homicides, injury descriptions are available dating back to 1991, so the "shooting" column will read either "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the homicide was a fatal shooting or not. For non-fatal shootings, data is only available as of 2010. As a result, for any non-fatal shootings that occurred from 2010 to the present, the shooting column will read as “Y.” Non-fatal shooting victims will not be included in this dataset prior to 2010; they will be included in the authorized dataset, but with "UNKNOWN" in the shooting column.

The dataset is refreshed daily, but excludes the most recent complete day to allow CPD time to gather the best available information. Each time the dataset is refreshed, records can change as CPD learns more about each victimization, especially those victimizations that are most recent. The data on the Mayor's Office Violence Reduction Dashboard is updated daily with an approximately 48-hour lag. As cases are passed from the initial reporting officer to the investigating detectives, some recorded data about incidents and victimizations may change once additional information arises. Regularly updated datasets on the City's public portal may change to reflect new or corrected information.

How does this dataset classify victims?

The methodology by which this dataset classifies victims of violent crime differs by victimization type:

Homicide and non-fatal shooting victims: A victimization is considered a homicide victimization or non-fatal shooting victimization depending on its presence in CPD's homicide victims data table or its shooting victims data table. A victimization is considered a homicide only if it is present in CPD's homicide data table, while a victimization is considered a non-fatal shooting only if it is present in CPD's shooting data tables and absent from CPD's homicide data table.

To determine the IUCR code of homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, we defer to the incident IUCR code available in CPD's Crimes, 2001-present dataset (available on the City's open data portal). If the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes dataset is inconsistent with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization, we defer to CPD's Victims dataset.

For a criminal homicide, the only sensible IUCR codes are 0110 (first-degree murder) or 0130 (second-degree murder). For a non-fatal shooting, a sensible IUCR code must signify a criminal sexual assault, a robbery, or, most commonly, an aggravated battery. In rare instances, the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes and Victims dataset do not align with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization:

1. In instances where a homicide victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code 0110 or 0130, we set the IUCR code to "01XX" to indicate that the victimization was a homicide but we do not know whether it was a first-degree murder (IUCR code = 0110) or a second-degree murder (IUCR code = 0130).
2. When a non-fatal shooting victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code that signifies a criminal sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated battery, we enter “UNK” in the IUCR column, “YES” in the GUNSHOT_I column, and “NON-FATAL” in the PRIMARY column to indicate that the victim was non-fatally shot, but the precise IUCR code is unknown.

Other violent crime victims: For other violent crime types, we refer to the IUCR classification that exists in CPD's victim table, with only one exception:

1. When there is an incident that is associated with no victim with a matching IUCR code, we assume that this is an error. Every crime should have at least 1 victim with a matching IUCR code. In these cases, we change the IUCR code to reflect the incident IUCR code because CPD's incident table is considered to be more reliable than the victim table.

Note: All businesses identified as victims in CPD data have been removed from this dataset.

Note: The definition of “homicide” (shooting or otherwise) does not include justifiable homicide or involuntary manslaughter. This dataset also excludes any cases that CPD considers to be “unfounded” or “noncriminal.”

Note: In some instances, the police department's raw incident-level data and victim-level data that were inputs into this dataset do not align on the type of crime that occurred. In those instances, this dataset attempts to correct mismatches between incident and victim specific crime types. When it is not possible to determine which victims are associated with the most recent crime determination, the dataset will show empty cells in the respective demographic fields (age, sex, race, etc.).

Note: The initial reporting officer usually asks victims to report demographic data. If victims are unable to recall, the reporting officer will use their best judgment. “Unknown” can be reported if it is truly unknown.

Data on police personnel (police officers by gender, civilian and other personnel), police-civilian ratio, police officers and authorized strength per 100,000 population, authorized police officer strength and selected crime statistics. Data is provided for Canada, provinces, territories and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) headquarters, training academy depot division and forensic labs, 1986 to 2023.

A table listing recommended and final penalties for each officer with a substantiated complaint of misconduct since the year 2000. Non-charges cases go through the Department Advocate's Office (DAO) and are recorded as non-APU where relevant in the table, while charges cases are prosecuted by the Administrative Prosecution Unit (APU) and are marked as APU penalties and recommendations. In all cases the NYPD Commissioner will issue a final penalty, labeled as "NYPD Officer Penalty" in the dataset. 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 2023, 1,190 deadly police shootings occurred in the United States, a slight increase from 1,156 in the previous year. During this same period, there were 322 Black people killed by the police.

This dataset contains Crime and Safety data from the Cary Police Department.

This data is extracted by the Town of Cary's Police Department's RMS application. The police incidents will provide data on the Part I crimes of arson, motor vehicle thefts, larcenies, burglaries, aggravated assaults, robberies and homicides. Sexual assaults and crimes involving juveniles will not appear to help protect the identities of victims.

This dataset includes criminal offenses in the Town of Cary for the previous 10 calendar years plus the current year. The data is based on the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) which includes all victims of person crimes and all crimes within an incident. The data is dynamic, which allows for additions, deletions and/or modifications at any time, resulting in more accurate information in the database. Due to continuous data entry, the number of records in subsequent extractions are subject to change. Crime data is updated daily however, incidents may be up to three days old before they first appear.

About Crime Data

The Cary Police Department strives to make crime data as accurate as possible, but there is no avoiding the introduction of errors into this process, which relies on data furnished by many people and that cannot always be verified. Data on this site are updated daily, adding new incidents and updating existing data with information gathered through the investigative process.

This dynamic nature of crime data means that content provided here today will probably differ from content provided a week from now. Additional, content provided on this site may differ somewhat from crime statistics published elsewhere by other media outlets, even though they draw from the same database.

Withheld Data

In accordance with legal restrictions against identifying sexual assault and child abuse victims and juvenile perpetrators, victims, and witnesses of certain crimes, this site includes the following precautionary measures: (a) Addresses of sexual assaults are not included. (b) Child abuse cases, and other crimes which by their nature involve juveniles, or which the reports indicate involve juveniles as victims, suspects, or witnesses, are not reported at all.

Certain crimes that are under current investigation may be omitted from the results in avoid comprising the investigative process.

Incidents five days old or newer may not be included until the internal audit process has been completed.

This data is updated daily.

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the level of domestic violence prosecution throughout the United States and to promote effective prosecution approaches through dissemination of information. The project sought to identify and connect local attorneys' needs for information with the best knowledge available on the most effective prosecution methods. In order to appraise domestic violence prosecution in the United States, the researchers mailed a survey to a nationally-representative sample of prosecutors to assess prosecution strategies in domestic violence cases (Part 1, Prosecutors' Survey Data). Smaller jurisdictions had such a low response rate to the initial survey that a modified follow-up survey (Part 2, Prosecutors' Follow-Up Data) was administered to those jurisdictions. From these surveys, the researchers identified three sites with pioneering specialized domestic violence prosecution programs: Duluth, Minnesota, King County, Washington, and San Francisco, California. In these three sites, the researchers then conducted a case file analysis of a random sample of domestic violence cases (Part 3, Case File Data). A survey of a random sample of female victims was also undertaken in King County and San Francisco (Part 4, Victim Interview Data). In addition, the researchers conducted on-site evaluations of these three specialized programs in which they interviewed staff about the scope of the domestic violence problem, domestic violence support personnel, the impact of the program on the domestic violence problem, and recommendations for the future. The qualitative data collected from these evaluations are provided only in the codebook for this collection. Parts 1 and 2, the Prosecutors' Surveys, contain variables about case management, case screening and charging, pretrial release policies, post-charge diversion, trial, sentencing options, victim support programs, and office and jurisdiction demographics. Questions cover the volume of domestic violence prosecutions, formal protocols for domestic violence prosecution, ways to deal with uncooperative victims, pro-arrest and no-drop policies, protection orders, types of evidence used, and collaboration with other organizations to prosecute domestic violence cases. In addition, Part 1 includes variables on diversion programs, victim noncompliance, substance abuse problems, victim support programs, and plea negotiations. Variables in Part 3, Case File Data, deal with reporting, initial and final charges, injuries sustained, weapons used, evidence available, protection orders issued, victim cooperation, police testimony, disposition, sentence, costs, and restitution for each domestic violence case. Part 4, Victim Interview Data, includes variables concerning victims' employment history, number of children, and substance abuse, opinions about the charges against the defendant, decision-making in the case, and prosecution strategies, and victims' participation in the case, amount of support from and contact with criminal justice agencies, safety concerns, and performance evaluations of various levels of the criminal justice system.

As part of its organization-wide transition to community policing in 1989, the Portland Police Bureau, in collaboration with the Family Violence Intervention Steering Committee of Multnomah County, developed a plan to reduce domestic violence in Portland. The creation of a special police unit to focus exclusively on misdemeanor domestic crimes was the centerpiece of the plan. This police unit, the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit (DVRU), had two goals: to increase the sanctions for batterers and to empower victims. This study was designed to determine whether DVRU strategies led to reductions in domestic violence. Data were collected from official records on batterers (Parts 1-10), and from surveys on victims (Parts 11-12). Part 1 (Police Recorded Study Case Data) provides information on police custody reports. Part 2 (Batterer Arrest History Data) describes the arrest history during a five-year period prior to each batterer's study case arrest date. Part 3 (Charges Data for Study Case Arrests) contains charges filed by the prosecutor's office in conjunction with study case arrests. Part 4 (Jail Data) reports booking charges and jail information. Part 5 (Court Data) contains sentencing information for those offenders who had either entered a guilty plea or had been found guilty of the charges stemming from the study case arrest. Data in Part 6 (Restraining Order Data) document the existence of restraining orders, before and/or after the study case arrest date. Part 7 (Diversion Program Data) includes deferred sentencing program information for study cases. Variables in Parts 1-7 provide information on number of batterer's arrests for domestic violence and non-domestic violence crimes in the past five years, charge and disposition of the study case, booking charges, number of hours offender spent in jail, type of release, type of sentence, if restraining order was filed after case arrest, if restraining order was served or vacated, number of days offender stayed in diversion program, and type of diversion violation incurred. Part 8 (Domestic Violence Reduction Unit Treatment Data) contains 395 of the 404 study cases that were randomly assigned to the treatment condition. Variables describe the types of services DVRU provided, such as taking photographs along with victim statements, providing the victim with information on case prosecution, restraining orders, shelters, counseling, and an appointment with district attorney, helping the victim get a restraining order, serving a restraining order on the batterer, transporting the victim to a shelter, and providing the victim with a motel voucher and emergency food supply. Part 9 (Police Record Recidivism Data) includes police entries (incident or arrest) six months before and six months after the study case arrest date. Part 10 (Police Recorded Revictimization and Reoffending Data) consists of revictimization and reoffending summary counts as well as time-to-failure data. Most of the variables in Part 10 were derived from information reported in Part 9. Part 9 and Part 10 variables include whether the offense in each incident was related to domestic violence, whether victimization was done by the same batterer as in the study case arrest, type of police action against the victimization, charges of the victimization, type of premises where the crime was committed, whether the police report indicated that witnesses or children were present, whether the police report mentioned victim injury, weapon used, involvement of drugs or alcohol, whether the batterer denied abuse victim, number of days from study cases to police-recorded revictimization, and whether the recorded victimization led to the batterer's arrest. Part 11 (Wave 1 Victim Interview Data) contains data obtained through in-person interviews with victims shortly (1-2 weeks) after the case entered the study. Data in Part 12 (Wave 2 Victim Interview Data) represent victims' responses to the second wave of interviews, conducted approximately six months after the study case victimization occurred. Variables in Part 11 and Part 12 cover the victim's experience six months before the study case arrest and six months after the study case arrest. Demographic variables in both files include victim's and batterer's race and ethnicity, employment, and income, and relationship status between victim and batterer. Information on childhood experiences includes whether the victim and batterer felt emotionally cared for by parents, whether the victim and batterer witnessed violence between parents while growing up, and whether the victim and batterer were abused as children by a family member. Variables on the batterer's abusive behaviors include whether the batterer threatened to kill, swore at, pushed or grabbed, slapped, beat, or forced the victim to have sex. Information on the results of the abuse includes whether the abuse led to cuts or bruises, broken bones, burns, internal injury, or damage to eyes or ears. Information was also collected on whether alcohol or drugs were involved in the abuse events. Variables on victims' actions after the event include whether the victim saw a doctor, whether the victim talked to a minister, a family member, a friend, a mental health professional, or a district attorney, whether the victim tried to get an arrest warrant, went to a shelter to talk, and/or stayed at a shelter, whether the victim asked police to intervene, tried to get a restraining order, talked to an attorney, or undertook other actions, and whether the event led to the batterer's arrest. Variables on victim satisfaction with the police and the DVRU include whether police or the DVRU were able to calm things down, recommended going to the district attorney, informed the victim of her legal rights, recommended that the victim contact shelter or support groups, transported the victim to a hospital, and listened to the victim, whether police treated the victim with respect, and whether the victim would want police or the DVRU involved in the future if needed. Variables on the victim's emotional state include whether the victim was confident that she could keep herself safe, felt her family life was under control, and felt she was doing all she could to get help. Other variables include number of children the victim had and their ages, and whether the children had seen violence between the victim and batterer.

This dataset is published by the City of Dallas for research purposes only. The authoritative source for crime data is the Crime Analytics Dashboard.

This dataset represents the Dallas Police Public Data - RMS Incidents beginning June 1, 2014 to current-date. The Dallas Police Department strives to collect and disseminate police report information in a timely, accurate manner. This information reflects crimes as reported to the Dallas Police Department as of the current date. Crime classifications are based upon preliminary information supplied to the Dallas Police Department by the reporting parties and the preliminary classifications may be changed at a later date based upon additional investigation. Therefore, the Dallas Police Department does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information contained herein and the information should not be used for comparison purposes over time. The Dallas Police Department will not be responsible for any error or omission, or for the use of, or the results obtained from the use of this information.

This online site is an attempt to make it easier for citizens to access offense reports. In disseminating this crime information, we must also comply with current laws that regulate the release of potentially sensitive and confidential information. To ensure that privacy concerns are protected and legal standards are met, report data is "filtered" prior to being made available to the public. Among the exclusions are:

1.) Sexually oriented offenses

2.) Offenses where juveniles or children (individuals under 17 years of age) are the victim or suspect

3.) Listing of property items that are considered evidence

4.) Social Service Referral offenses

5.) Identifying vehicle information in certain offenses

This dataset contains the complaints received by the Civilian Office of Police Accountability and its predecessor agency in Chicago. Complaints include excessive force, domestic violence, bias-based verbal abuse, and coercion with the threat of violence.