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.

Incidents of police violence can undermine trust in legal authorities. Whether such incidents have this effect will depend on how citizens evaluate victims, the police, and public officials. Citizens’ evaluations may be shaped by information about: 1) a pattern of police violence and 2) government responses. We study citizens’ reactions to police violence by randomly assigning these two types of information in the context of the Stephon Clark shooting in Sacramento. We find that information influences levels of blame for and trust in the police, but the effects depend on citizens’ race and whether they live in the community where the violence occurred. In contrast, information does not alter citizens’ perceptions of local police officer organizations and, in turn, their willingness to follow police endorsements in elections. These results suggest a catch-22 whereby police violence can diminish the standing of police personnel, but favorable local opinion preserves their political influence.

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:

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: 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.” Officer-involved shootings are not included.

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.

Note: In some instances, CPD'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 reliable crime determination, the dataset will show empty cells in the respective demographic fields (age, sex, race, etc.).

Note: Homicide victims names are delayed by two weeks to allow time for the victim’s family to be notified of their passing.

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.

Note: This dataset includes variables referencing administrative or political boundaries that are subject to change. These include Street Outreach Organization boundary, Ward, Chicago Police Department District, Chicago Police Department Area, Chicago Police Department Beat, Illinois State Senate District, and Illinois State House of Representatives District. These variables reflect current geographic boundaries as of November 1st, 2021. In some instances, current boundaries may conflict with those that were in place at the time that a given incident occurred in prior years. For example, the Chicago Police Department districts 021 and 013 no longer exist. Any historical violent crime victimization that occurred in those districts when they were in existence are marked in this dataset as having occurred in the current districts that expanded to replace 013 and 021."

This is information related to violence among the security accident statistics provided by the Living Safety Map (https://www.safemap.go.kr) operated by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, and provides the number of violent incidents over the past three years collected through the National Police Agency. WMS information expresses the number of incidents by police station (police station, district office, police box) by dividing them into 5 levels, which can be distinguished through the legend. In addition, the security accident statistics are provided by applying the local government's own level rather than the actual number of incidents so that the number of incidents cannot be compared.

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.

As part of the development of an information base for subsequent policy initiatives, the National Institute of Justice sponsored a nationwide survey of police psychologists to learn more about the characteristics of officers who abuse force, the types of measures police psychologists recommend to control police violence and the role of police psychologists in preventing and identifying individual police officers at risk for use of excessive force. Police personnel divisions in 50 large cities were contacted for names and addresses of the police psychologists who provided services to their departments. Data were collected using a telephone interview protocol that included 61 questions. In this study, excessive force was defined as a violation of a police department's use-of-force policy by an incumbent officer that was serious enough to warrant a referral to the police psychologist. Background information collected on respondents included years with the department, years as a police psychologist, if the position was salaried or consultant, and how often the psychologist met with the police chief. A battery of questions pertaining to screening was asked, including whether the psychologist performed pre-employment psychological screening and what methods were used to identify job candidates with a propensity to use excessive force. Questions regarding monitoring procedures asked if and how police officer behavior was monitored and if incumbent officers were tested for propensity to use excessive force. Items concerning police training included which officers the psychologist trained, what types of training covering excessive force were conducted, and what modules should be included in training to reduce excessive force. Information about mental health services was elicited, with questions on whether the psychologist counseled officers charged with excessive force, what models were used, how the psychologist knew if the intervention had been successful, what factors limited the effectiveness of counseling police officers, characteristics of officers prone to use excessive force, how these officers are best identified, and who or what has the most influence on these officers. General opinion questions asked about factors that increase excessive force behavior and what services could be utilized to reduce excessive force.

The Shootings dashboard contains information on shooting incidents where a victim was struck by a bullet, either fatally or non-fatally; that occurred in the City of Boston and fall under Boston Police Department jurisdiction. The dashboard does not contain records for self-inflicted gunshot wounds or shootings determined to be justifiable. Information on the incident, and the demographics of victims are included. This information is updated based on analysis conducted by the Boston Regional Intelligence Center under the Boston Police Department Bureau of Intelligence and Analysis. The data is for 2015 forward, with a 7 day rolling delay to allow for analysis and data entry to occur.

This dataset consists of gun violence within Jefferson county that may fall within LMPDs radar, including non-fatal shootings, homicides, as well as shot-spotter data. The mapping data points where there are victims have been obfuscated to maintain privacy, while still being accurate enough to be placed in its correct boundaries, particularly around, neighborhoods, ZIP Codes, Council districts, and police divisions. The data also excludes any victim information that could be used to identify any individual. this data is used to make the public aware of what is going on in their communities. The data consists of only criminal incidents, excluding any cases that are deemed non-criminal.Field NameField DescriptionCase numberPolice report number. For ShotSpotter detections, it is the ShotSpotter ID.DateTimeDate and time in which the original incident occurred. Time is rounded down.AddressAddress rounded down to the one hundred block of where the initial incident occured. Unless it is an intersection.NeighborhoodNeighborhood in which the original incident occurred.Council DistrictCouncil district in which the original incident occurred.LatitudeLatitude coordinate used to map the incidentLongitudeLongitude coordinate used to map the incidentZIP CodeZIP Code in which the original incident occurred.Crime Typea distinction between incidents, whether it is a non-fatal shooting, homicide, or a ShotSpotter detection.CauseUsed to differentiate on the cause of death for homicide victims.SexGender of the victim of the initial incident.RaceRace/Ethnicity of the victim in a given incident.Age GroupCategorized age groups used to anonymize victim information.Division NamePolice division or department where the initial incident occurred.Crime report data is provided for Louisville Metro Police Divisions only; crime data does not include smaller class cities, unless LMPD becomes involved in smaller agency incident.The data provided in this dataset is preliminary in nature and may have not been investigated by a detective at the time of download. The data is therefore subject to change after a complete investigation. This data represents only calls for police service where a police incident report was taken. Due to the variations in local laws and ordinances involving crimes across the nation, whether another agency utilizes Uniform Crime Report (UCR) or National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) guidelines, and the results learned after an official investigation, comparisons should not be made between the statistics generated with this dataset to any other official police reports. Totals in the database may vary considerably from official totals following the investigation and final categorization of a crime. Therefore, the data should not be used for comparisons with Uniform Crime Report or other summary statistics.Contact:Ivan Benitez, Ph.D.Gun Violence Data FellowOffice for Safe and Healthy Neighborhoodsivan.benitez@louisvilleky.gov

A. SUMMARY This dataset contains public information on police misconduct cases split up by unique allegations. This includes case numbers, dates of receipt, incident locations, police districts involved, allegations made, investigation findings, issuance dates of findings, and case closure dates. Its purpose is to enhance transparency and accountability by providing accessible details about alleged misconduct to the public. By offering insights into the scope and outcomes of investigations, it enables citizens to stay informed about incidents in their communities, fostering trust and facilitating discussions on police accountability and reform efforts. Access to this dataset empowers individuals to monitor the progress of cases and engage in constructive dialogue to promote positive change in law enforcement practices. B. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED The data set is created when a complaint is made to DPA. DPA opens the case and date is developed through out the life of the case. C. UPDATE PROCESS The data is downloaded once a week from DPA’s Case Management System. D. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET The dataset includes information on complaints received and closed in the current calendar year. Some cases will display received dates in previous years due to them being closed out in the current year. E. RELATED DATASETS Police Accountability Misconduct Cases and Allegations

The Domestic Violence Research Project was a pilot study designed to examine the dynamics of domestic violence within two of the ten police districts that comprise the city of Boston. The objectives were to collect data on domestic violence in greater detail than previously possible, conduct various analyses on this information, and determine how the findings could best be used to improve the police, prosecutorial, and social service responses to domestic violence. Data for 1993 are a stratified random sample of reported domestic violence incidents occurring throughout the year. The sample represents approximately 27 percent of the domestic violence incidents reported in 1993 for the two districts studied, B3 and D4. The 1994 data include all reported incidents occurring in the two districts during the period May to July. After the incident selection process was completed, data were collected from police incident reports, follow-up investigation reports, criminal history reports, and court dockets. Variables include arrest offenses, time of incident, location of incident, witnesses (including children), nature and extent of injuries, drug and alcohol use, history of similar incidents, whether there were restraining orders in effect, and basic demographic information on victims and offenders. Criminal history information was coded into five distinct categories: (1) violent offenses, (2) nonviolent offenses, (3) domestic violence offenses, (4) drug/alcohol offenses, and (5) firearms offenses.

Protests started on May 26, 2020, one day after George Floyd, an African-American man died during a police arrest. Demonstrations around the world were sparked, demanding justice for those killed due to police conduct. This dashboard displays the documented demonstrations of protests against police brutality/misconduct following the death of George Floyd. While the death of George Floyd seemed to mark the start of these international demonstrations, and many sources of data indicated these protests were a result of Floyd's death, others who have died by police recently, notably Breonna Taylor, are not neglected in this application. In addition, it is understood that the protests are not only aimed at addressing the death of George Floyd, but the history of police violence, especially in the United States.Due to the nature of this content, there are some warnings and considerations for the audience. This application is intended to show the extent of the demonstrations; however, data points include information, details, and links to reported violence at the respective protests. This might not be suitable for all audiences. An attempt was made to include images from all protests, all of which are hosted, and linked from published news articles. In addition, images of children and unmasked faces from unidentified people, and images of violence were intentionally avoided; however, in some cases, there might have been an exception made (ie, if the identity of the person is given in the linked image source, if the only image available from the protest is depicting violence, or if the image is deemed especially effective at conveying history).The data, both Domestic to United States and International, is manually entered into a Google Sheet where it is then directly imported into ArcGIS Online. Because this is a massive undertaking for one person, there are still many updates that are required. As of June 27, 2020, most locations have been placed on the map; however, many details about each demonstration are missing. There are still updates planned, notably, for multi-day protests that occurred in large USA cities, such as Louisville, KY; Minneapolis, MN; Philadelphia, PA; New York City, NY; Richmond, VA; Los Angeles, CA; Portland, OR; and Seattle, WA. Due to the complexity of these protests, marches, and single location demonstrations, this process will take considerably longer to gather information, determine the most appropriate schema, and implement those changes.Once all demonstration locations have been compiled, each location with multiple days of protests will be broken into new rows/points in order to introduce date filtering functions.Most data has been sourced from Wikipedia pages including:List of George Floyd Protests in the United StatesList of George Floyd Protest Outside of the United StatesList of George Floyd Protests in [US/Canadian State] - linked in the Wiki Page for Protests In/Outside the United StatesList of George Floyd Protests in [City] - linked in the Wiki Page for Protests in [US/Canadian State]Citations to publications from these Wikipedia pages were used to supply additional information and images, linked directly from their sources. It is encouraged to view citations in these articles to gain a better understanding of the event, and to support the media that provided this information via ad revenue.Note from the author:As a GIS Analyst by profession, as well as someone who has been emotionally moved by the events that have led to, and transpired following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, Michael Brown, Elijah McClain, and other Black Americans whose lives have been taken by Police, I felt it was an appropriate response to document, and share information about this international movement. As a person, particularly, a White person, who has been privileged in many aspects of society, and has gained these skills, at least partially, through my privilege, it's necessary to use that as a reason to inform others, provide impact to my community, and rather than speaking for others, use my skills to amplify their voices. With that said, there is a professional aspect that must be taken into consideration with this application. It is my utmost duty, as a GIS Analyst, and a person who follows professional and ethical guidelines to not: alter any information provided by our news media, to add personal bias to the facts, and to be unresponsive of criticism. If there are any complaints, whether information in the application is inaccurate, incomplete, or shows a unprofessional bias, please follow the link within the Dashboard to my Google Forms where you can submit suggestions, recommendations, or provide your personal opinion. I read all of these comments, and take the feedback seriously.There is a known issue with adding a filtering function by US State. Generally, the filter will appropriately reduce the data but on occasion, the location of the protests will shift. This issue is being investigated, and it is uncertain when a resolution will occur.

This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime (with the exception of murders where data exists for each victim) that occurred in the City of Chicago from 2001 to present, minus the most recent seven days. Data is extracted from the Chicago Police Department's CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system. In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. Should you have questions about this dataset, you may contact the Research & Development Division of the Chicago Police Department at PSITAdministration@ChicagoPolice.org. Disclaimer: These crimes may be based upon preliminary information supplied to the Police Department by the reporting parties that have not been verified. The preliminary crime classifications may be changed at a later date based upon additional investigation and there is always the possibility of mechanical or human error. Therefore, the Chicago Police Department does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information and the information should not be used for comparison purposes over time. The Chicago 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. All data visualizations on maps should be considered approximate and attempts to derive specific addresses are strictly prohibited. The Chicago Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Chicago or Chicago Police Department web page. The user specifically acknowledges that the Chicago Police Department is not responsible for any defamatory, offensive, misleading, or illegal conduct of other users, links, or third parties and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user. The unauthorized use of the words "Chicago Police Department," "Chicago Police," or any colorable imitation of these words or the unauthorized use of the Chicago Police Department logo is unlawful. This web page does not, in any way, authorize such use. Data are updated daily. The dataset contains more than 65,000 records/rows of data and cannot be viewed in full in Microsoft Excel. Therefore, when downloading the file, select CSV from the Export menu. Open the file in an ASCII text editor, such as Wordpad, to view and search. To access a list of Chicago Police Department - Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting (IUCR) codes, go to http://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Chicago-Police-Department-Illinois-Uniform-Crime-R/c7ck-438e

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.

This is information on crime caution zones by administrative district for the five major crimes provided by the Living Safety Map (https://www.safemap.go.kr) operated by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, and is information on the recent year's robbery occurrence status related to robbery, sexual assault, violence, theft, and theft among violence. Information on crime caution zones is provided as a map service in WMS format using density analysis information provided by the National Police Agency. ※ Caution zone information is expressed in grades (10 grades) on the road, and the darker the color of the legend becomes, the more caution is required.

This data collection examines individual and situational characteristics of nonfatal assaults on police officers in the Baltimore County Police Department. In the assault data, variables include: (1) information on the officer such as age, race, sex, height, weight, education, rank, assignment, years of experience, weapon, and injury sustained, (2) information on the offender(s) such as age, race, sex, height, weight, weapon, injury sustained, and arrest status, and (3) information on the actual situation and incident itself, such as type of call anticipated, type of call encountered, type of location, numbers of persons present (by role, e.g., assaulter, nonassaulter, complainant, etc.), type of initial officer action, actions of suspect before assault, sobriety/drug use by suspects, and final disposition. The calls for service data were collected to provide an indication of the frequency of various types of calls. In these data, variables include time of call, initial call category, disposition code, and sheet ID.

This is the City of Raleigh Police Incident Data after 2005 and prior to June 1, 2014. Each row represents a report made by the police officer, but not all reports may have resulted in arrests or convictions. The locations provided with this dataset DO NOT reflect the exact locations where the incidents occurred. The locations provided represent a randomized location within the general neighborhood area where the incident was reported. To protect the privacy of victims and their families further, the Raleigh Police Department (RPD) has redacted all location information associated with incidents involving sexual assault, child abuse, juvenile incidents, domestic abuse and other related incidents. The column heading "LCR DESC" represents the description of Incident Type. The column heading "LCR" is the local code used by police to categorize the Incident Type Years covered: 2005 - June 1, 2014. This data is collected and presented according to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) for the Summary Reporting System (SRS) standard set by the FBI. Find out more about the standards here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr-program-data-collections#National & detailed information about Summary UCR method here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/summary-reporting-system-srs-user-manual

This collection investigates the impact of increased activity of community intervention projects on the incidence of domestic abuse. In particular, the data provide an opportunity to evaluate the impact of police actions and court-ordered abuser treatment on the continued abuse of victims. The data file includes demographic information such as victim's age, race, and sex, and perpetrator's age, birthdate, relationship to the victim, sex, and physical or mental disabilities. Other variables describe the location and description of the incident, the number and gender of victims and perpetrators, and the outcome of the police intervention, i.e., arrest or nonarrest. Interviews with victims provided information regarding previous history of police intervention for domestic abuse, specific information about the violence suffered and resulting injuries, the frequency and type of abuse suffered in the six months prior to the violent incident in question, the type of police intervention used, and the victim's satisfaction with the responses of police. In addition, the 6- and 12-month interviews contain data regarding the change in the victim's relationship status since the last interview, satisfaction with the relationship, continued abuse and criminal justice involvement, use of support services by the victim or members of the victim's family, and satisfaction with these services.

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