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 312.745.6071 or RandD@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 is updated daily Tuesday through Sunday. 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

Shoplifting Detector

## Overview

Shoplifting Detector is a dataset for object detection tasks - it contains Shoplifting annotations for 2,986 images.

## Getting Started

You can download this dataset for use within your own projects, or fork it into a workspace on Roboflow to create your own model.

  ## License

  This dataset is available under the [CC BY 4.0 license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/CC BY 4.0).

This dataset includes all valid felony, misdemeanor, and violation crimes reported to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for all complete quarters so far this year (2019). For additional details, please see the attached data dictionary in the ‘About’ section.

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 except 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) if further information is needed. This research expanded on offenders' decisions whether or not to offend by having explored a range of alternatives within the "not offending" category, using a framework derived from the concept of crime displacement. Decision trees were employed to analyze the multi-staged decision-making processes of criminals who are blocked from offending due to a situational crime control or prevention measure. The researchers were interested in determining how offenders evaluated displacement options as available alternatives. The data were collected through face-to-face interviews with 200 adult offenders, either in jail or on probation under the authority of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from 14 counties. Qualitative data collected as part of this study's methodology are not included as part of the data collection at this time. Three datasets are included as part of this collection: NIJ-2013-3454_Part1_Participants.sav (200 cases, 9 variables) NIJ-2013-3454_Part2_MeasuresSurvey.sav (2415 cases, 6 variables) NIJ-2013-3454_Part3_Vignettes.sav (1248 cases, 10 variables) Demographic variables included: age, gender, race, and ethnicity.

The Anti-shoplifting Devices market has become a crucial component in retail security, evolving to meet the growing challenge of inventory loss due to theft. Retailers across various sectors, including apparel, electronics, and grocery, increasingly invest in sophisticated anti-theft technologies to protect their as

The global market for desktop anti-theft devices is experiencing robust growth, projected to reach $291 million in 2025 and maintain a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 8.8% from 2025 to 2033. This expansion is driven by several key factors. Increasing concerns about workplace security and data breaches are prompting businesses and organizations to invest heavily in robust anti-theft measures. The rising adoption of advanced technologies like magnetic alarms and sophisticated software-based security systems is further fueling market growth. The retail sector, encompassing shop stores and supermarkets, represents a significant segment, leveraging these devices to protect high-value merchandise and prevent shoplifting. Furthermore, the growing trend of hybrid and remote work models is indirectly contributing to market expansion as companies seek secure solutions for protecting equipment used in both office and home environments. Several trends are shaping the future of this market. The development of more discreet and aesthetically pleasing anti-theft devices is gaining traction, catering to businesses that prioritize a clean and professional workspace. Integration with existing security systems and alarm management platforms is also becoming increasingly common, simplifying installation and maintenance. However, the market faces some restraints. The initial investment cost for deploying anti-theft systems can be a barrier for smaller businesses. Furthermore, the occasional failure of such systems and the need for constant maintenance can be a concern. The market is segmented by application (shop store, supermarket, others) and type (magnetic alarm, copyright label, others). Key players include InVue, MTI, Kumoh Electronics, and several other prominent manufacturers across North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. The substantial growth potential in developing economies, alongside the continuous innovation in anti-theft technology, points towards a positive outlook for the market in the coming years.

The UCF-Crime dataset is a large-scale dataset of 128 hours of videos. It consists of 1900 long and untrimmed real-world surveillance videos, with 13 realistic anomalies including Abuse, Arrest, Arson, Assault, Road Accident, Burglary, Explosion, Fighting, Robbery, Shooting, Stealing, Shoplifting, and Vandalism. These anomalies are selected because they have a significant impact on public safety.

This dataset can be used for two tasks. First, general anomaly detection considering all anomalies in one group and all normal activities in another group. Second, for recognizing each of 13 anomalous activities.

This data set includes raw data from the RFID reader and the processed attributes.

For a comprehensive guide to this data and other UCR data, please see my book at ucrbook.comVersion 9 release notes:Adds 2021 data.Version 8 release notes:Adds 2020 data. Please note that the FBI has retired UCR data ending in 2020 data so this will be the last Property Stolen and Recovered data they release. Changes .rda file to .rds.Version 7 release notes:Adds data for 2006.Version 6 release notesChanges release notes description, does not change data.Version 5 release notes:Adds data for 2019Note that the number of months reported variable sharply changes starting in 2018. This is probably due to changes in UCR reporting of the "status" variable which is used to generate the months missing county (the code I used does not change). So pre-2018 and 2018+ years may not be comparable for this variable. Version 4 release notes:Adds data for 2018Version 3 release notes:Adds data in the following formats: Excel.Changes project name to avoid confusing this data for the ones done by NACJD.Version 2 release notes:Adds data for 2017.Adds a "number_of_months_reported" variable which says how many months of the year the agency reported data.Property Stolen and Recovered is a Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data set with information on the number of offenses (crimes included are murder, rape, robbery, burglary, theft/larceny, and motor vehicle theft), the value of the offense, and subcategories of the offense (e.g. for robbery it is broken down into subcategories including highway robbery, bank robbery, gas station robbery). The majority of the data relates to theft. Theft is divided into subcategories of theft such as shoplifting, theft of bicycle, theft from building, and purse snatching. For a number of items stolen (e.g. money, jewelry and previous metals, guns), the value of property stolen and and the value for property recovered is provided. This data set is also referred to as the Supplement to Return A (Offenses Known and Reported). All the data was received directly from the FBI as text or .DTA files. There may be inaccuracies in the data, particularly in the group of columns starting with "auto." To reduce (but certainly not eliminate) data errors, I replaced the following values with NA for the group of columns beginning with "offenses" or "auto" as they are common data entry error values (e.g. are larger than the agency's population, are much larger than other crimes or months in same agency): 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000, 20000, 30000, 40000, 50000, 60000, 70000, 80000, 90000, 100000, 99942. This cleaning was NOT done on the columns starting with "value."For every numeric column I replaced negative indicator values (e.g. "j" for -1) with the negative number they are supposed to be. These negative number indicators are not included in the FBI's codebook for this data but are present in the data. I used the values in the FBI's codebook for the Offenses Known and Clearances by Arrest data.To make it easier to merge with other data, I merged this data with the Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk (LEAIC) data. The data from the LEAIC add FIPS (state, county, and place) and agency type/subtype. If an agency has used a different FIPS code in the past, check to make sure the FIPS code is the same as in this data.

Description:

👉 Download the dataset here

This dataset has been meticulously curated to facilitate. The development and training of machine learning models specifically designed for detecting Suspicious Activity Detection Dataset. With a primary focus on shoplifting. The dataset is organized into two distinct categories: 'Suspicious' and 'Normal' activities. These classifications are intended to help models differentiate between typical behaviors and actions that may warrant further investigation in a retail setting.

Download Dataset

Structure and Organization

The dataset is structured into three main directories-train, test, and validation-each containing a balanced distribution of images from both categories. This structured approach ensures that the model is trained effectively, evaluated comprehensively, and validated on a diverse set of scenarios.

Train Folder: Contains a substantial number of images representing both suspicious and normal activities. This folder serves as the primary dataset for training the model, allowing it to learn and generalize patterns from a wide variety of scenarios.

Test Folder: Designed for evaluating the model's performance post-training, this folder contains a separate set of labeled images. The test data allows for unbiased performance evaluation, ensuring that the model can generalize well to unseen situations.

Validation Folder: This additional split is used during the model training process to tune hyperparameters and prevent overfitting by testing the model's accuracy on a smaller, separate dataset before final testing.

Labels and Annotations

Each image is accompanied by a corresponding label that indicates whether the activity is 'Suspicious' or 'Normal.' The dataset is fully labeled, making it ideal for supervised learning tasks. Additionally, the labels provide contextual information such as the type of activity or the environment in which it occurred, further enriching the dataset for nuanced model training.

Use Cases and Applications

This dataset is particularly valuable for Al applications in the retail industry, where detecting potential shoplifting or suspicious behaviors is crucial for loss prevention. The dataset can be used to train models for:

Real-Time Surveillance Systems: Integrate Al-driven models into surveillance cameras to detect and alert security personnel to potential threats.

Retail Analytics: Use the dataset to identify patterns in customer behavior, helping retailers optimize their store layouts or refine security measures.

Anomaly Detection: Extend the dataset's application beyond shoplifting to other suspicious activities, such as unauthorized access or vandalism in different environments.

Key Features

High-Quality Image Data: Each image is captured in various retail environments, providing a broad spectrum of lighting conditions, angles, and occlusions to challenge model performance.

Detailed Annotations: Beyond simple categorization, each image includes metadata that offers deeper insights, such as activity type, timestamp, and environmental conditions.

Scalable and Versatile: The dataset's comprehensive structure and annotations make it versatile for use in not only retail but also other security-critical environments like airports or stadiums.

Conclusion

This dataset offers a robust foundation for developing advanced machine learning. Models tailored for real-time activity detection. Providing critical tools for retail security, surveillance systems, and anomaly detection applications. With its rich variety of label data and organize structure. The Suspicious Activity Detection Dataset serves. As a valuable resource for any Al project focusing on enhancing safety and security through visual recognition.

This dataset is sourced from Kaggle.

Police recorded crime figures by Police Force Area and Community Safety Partnership areas (which equate in the majority of instances, to local authorities).

For any questions about this data please email me at jacob@crimedatatool.com. If you use this data, please cite it.Version 3 release notes:Adds data in the following formats: Excel.Changes project name to avoid confusing this data for the ones done by NACJD.Version 2 release notes:Adds data for 2017.Adds a "number_of_months_reported" variable which says how many months of the year the agency reported data.Property Stolen and Recovered is a Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data set with information on the number of offenses (crimes included are murder, rape, robbery, burglary, theft/larceny, and motor vehicle theft), the value of the offense, and subcategories of the offense (e.g. for robbery it is broken down into subcategories including highway robbery, bank robbery, gas station robbery). The majority of the data relates to theft. Theft is divided into subcategories of theft such as shoplifting, theft of bicycle, theft from building, and purse snatching. For a number of items stolen (e.g. money, jewelry and previous metals, guns), the value of property stolen and and the value for property recovered is provided. This data set is also referred to as the Supplement to Return A (Offenses Known and Reported). All the data was received directly from the FBI as text or .DTA files. I created a setup file based on the documentation provided by the FBI and read the data into R using the package asciiSetupReader. All work to clean the data and save it in various file formats was also done in R. For the R code used to clean this data, see here: https://github.com/jacobkap/crime_data. The Word document file available for download is the guidebook the FBI provided with the raw data which I used to create the setup file to read in data.There may be inaccuracies in the data, particularly in the group of columns starting with "auto." To reduce (but certainly not eliminate) data errors, I replaced the following values with NA for the group of columns beginning with "offenses" or "auto" as they are common data entry error values (e.g. are larger than the agency's population, are much larger than other crimes or months in same agency): 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000, 20000, 30000, 40000, 50000, 60000, 70000, 80000, 90000, 100000, 99942. This cleaning was NOT done on the columns starting with "value."For every numeric column I replaced negative indicator values (e.g. "j" for -1) with the negative number they are supposed to be. These negative number indicators are not included in the FBI's codebook for this data but are present in the data. I used the values in the FBI's codebook for the Offenses Known and Clearances by Arrest data.To make it easier to merge with other data, I merged this data with the Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk (LEAIC) data. The data from the LEAIC add FIPS (state, county, and place) and agency type/subtype. If an agency has used a different FIPS code in the past, check to make sure the FIPS code is the same as in this data.

The National Crime Survey (NCS), a study of personal and household victimization, measures victimization for six selected crimes, including attempts. The NCS was designed to achieve three primary objectives: to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to police, and to provide uniform measures of selected types of crime. The surveys cover the following types of crimes, including attempts: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, and auto or motor vehicle theft. Crimes such as murder, kidnapping, shoplifting, and gambling are not covered. Questions designed to obtain data on the characteristics and circumstances of the victimization were asked in each incident report. Items such as time and place of occurrence, injuries suffered, medical expenses incurred, number, age, race, and sex of offender(s), relationship of offender(s) to victim (stranger, casual acquaintance, relative, etc.), and other detailed data relevant to a complete description of the incident were included. Legal and technical terms, such as assault and larceny, were avoided during the interviews. Incidents were later classified in more technical terms based upon the presence or absence of certain elements. In addition, data were collected in the study to obtain information on the victims' education, migration, labor force status, occupation, and income. Full data for each year are contained in Parts 101-110. Incident-level extract files (Parts 1-10, 41) are available to provide users with files that are easy to manipulate. The incident-level datasets contain each incident record that appears in the full sample file, the victim's person record, and the victim's household information. These data include person and household information for incidents only. Subsetted person-level files also are available as Parts 50-79. All of the variables for victims are repeated for a maximum of four incidents per victim. There is one person-level subset file for each interview quarter of the complete national sample from 1973 through the second interview quarter in 1980.

The major objective of this study was to examine how physical characteristics of commercial centers and demographic characteristics of residential areas contribute to crime and how these characteristics affect reactions to crime in mixed commercial-residential settings. Information on physical characteristics includes type of business, store hours, arrangement of buildings, and defensive modifications in the area. Demographic variables cover racial composition, average household size and income, and percent change of occupancy. The crime data describe six types of crime: robbery, burglary, assault, rape, personal theft, and shoplifting.

The average for 2016 based on 74 countries was 783 thefts per 100,000 people. The highest value was in Denmark: 3949 thefts per 100,000 people and the lowest value was in Senegal: 1 thefts per 100,000 people. The indicator is available from 2003 to 2016. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

For any questions about this data please email me at jacob@crimedatatool.com. If you use this data, please cite it.Version 4 release notes:Adds data for 2018Version 3 release notes:Adds data in the following formats: Excel.Changes project name to avoid confusing this data for the ones done by NACJD.Version 2 release notes:Adds data for 2017.Adds a "number_of_months_reported" variable which says how many months of the year the agency reported data.Property Stolen and Recovered is a Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data set with information on the number of offenses (crimes included are murder, rape, robbery, burglary, theft/larceny, and motor vehicle theft), the value of the offense, and subcategories of the offense (e.g. for robbery it is broken down into subcategories including highway robbery, bank robbery, gas station robbery). The majority of the data relates to theft. Theft is divided into subcategories of theft such as shoplifting, theft of bicycle, theft from building, and purse snatching. For a number of items stolen (e.g. money, jewelry and previous metals, guns), the value of property stolen and and the value for property recovered is provided. This data set is also referred to as the Supplement to Return A (Offenses Known and Reported). All the data was received directly from the FBI as text or .DTA files. I created a setup file based on the documentation provided by the FBI and read the data into R using the package asciiSetupReader. All work to clean the data and save it in various file formats was also done in R. For the R code used to clean this data, see here: https://github.com/jacobkap/crime_data. The Word document file available for download is the guidebook the FBI provided with the raw data which I used to create the setup file to read in data.There may be inaccuracies in the data, particularly in the group of columns starting with "auto." To reduce (but certainly not eliminate) data errors, I replaced the following values with NA for the group of columns beginning with "offenses" or "auto" as they are common data entry error values (e.g. are larger than the agency's population, are much larger than other crimes or months in same agency): 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000, 20000, 30000, 40000, 50000, 60000, 70000, 80000, 90000, 100000, 99942. This cleaning was NOT done on the columns starting with "value."For every numeric column I replaced negative indicator values (e.g. "j" for -1) with the negative number they are supposed to be. These negative number indicators are not included in the FBI's codebook for this data but are present in the data. I used the values in the FBI's codebook for the Offenses Known and Clearances by Arrest data.To make it easier to merge with other data, I merged this data with the Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk (LEAIC) data. The data from the LEAIC add FIPS (state, county, and place) and agency type/subtype. If an agency has used a different FIPS code in the past, check to make sure the FIPS code is the same as in this data.

In an effort to measure the effectiveness of crime deterrents and to estimate crime rates, calls for assistance placed to police in Oklahoma City over a two-year period were enumerated. This type of call was studied in order to circumvent problems such as "interviewer's effect" and sampling errors that occur with other methods. The telephone calls were stratified by police district, allowing for analysis on the neighborhood level to determine whether deterrence operates ecologically--that is, by neighbors informing one another about arrests which took place as a result of their calls to the police. In measuring deterrence, only the calls that concerned robbery were used. To estimate crime rates, calls were tallied on a monthly basis for 18 types of offenses: aggravated assault, robbery, rape, burglary, grand larceny, motor vehicle theft, simple assault, fraud, child molestation, other sex offenses, domestic disturbance, disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, vice and drugs, petty larceny, shoplifting, kidnapping/hostage taking, and suspicious activity.