Spy Tools: How Nevada Tracks Vehicles, Phones, Faces, and Movements

Government surveillance must answer to the Constitution, not merely to a vendor contract.

Last reviewed: 2026-10-27Legal review: unverifiedFlock portal metrics: not retrieved77 inventory entries

Explore the surveillance inventory See the Flock numbers Read the legal challenges Request public records

Evidence rule

This page is public-interest research and advocacy for constitutional limits, warrants where tracking is invasive, retention limits, and public oversight. An evidence grade is not a court finding. A hotlist hit is not a confirmed crime, arrest, conviction, or successful investigation. A camera detection is not necessarily one vehicle or one person. A small hit-to-detection ratio is an activity ratio, not a crime-solving rate. It does not prove that other drivers are innocent, and it does not prove that the scans are unlawful. No decision in this library holds that every ALPR scan or every public-camera image is already unconstitutional.

How a claim earns a grade

Documented Nevada deployment means a retrieved source names a Nevada agency and a system. The source grade is on the card. A news report is not a contract this page read.

Documented elsewhere / Nevada use unverified means a source describes the technology outside a confirmed Nevada deployment, or describes it without naming the Nevada agency.

Capability or investigative question means the technology is in the inventory because it can exist. It is not a confirmed Nevada practice.

Established legal holding, analogical constitutional argument, and unresolved question are separate. Counterauthority is stated where a case points the other way.

Platforms are not assumed to share data or to be interoperable. A link is reported only where a source describes it. Other links are marked not established.

One-year retention is not asserted. A 365-day figure stays verification required until a portal, current policy, contract, or public record establishes it for that agency and that system.

City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety Flock portal

This panel is not LVMPD. The department named on the Flock URL is the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety.

Not a live feed

Retrieval on 2026-10-27 returned a Cloudflare interstitial and no portal metrics. This is not a live feed. These figures are not attributed to LVMPD.

Agency: City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety
Portal: Flock transparency page
Last checked: 2026-10-27
Vehicles detected, 30 days: Not retrieved
Hotlist hits, 30 days: Not retrieved
Searches, 30 days: Not retrieved
Reported retention: Not retrieved. User research asserts 365 days. Verification required until the portal, a current policy, a contract, or a public record establishes the period for this agency and this system.
Data-sharing settings: Not retrieved.

Undated user-provided snapshots

No trend chart is shown. These snapshots have no capture dates, so a line between them would invent an order.

Activity ratio, not a crime-solving rate. Detections, hotlist hits, and searches count different events. They need not be distinct people. A hotlist hit is not a confirmed crime, arrest, conviction, or successful investigation. A detection is not necessarily one vehicle or one person. A small ratio does not prove that other drivers are innocent, and it does not prove that the scans are unlawful.

Two user-provided count pairs for the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety portal. Capture dates are unknown. Not independently reverified.
Snapshot	Detections	Hotlist hits	Searches	Hit activity ratio	Search activity ratio	Capture date
undated user-provided snapshotuser-snapshot-a. Not independently reverified.	176,149	104	68	0.059041%	0.038604%	None on file
undated user-provided snapshotuser-snapshot-b. Not independently reverified.	194,421	117	5	0.060179%	0.002572%	None on file

Download the snapshot CSV. The file repeats the undated, not-reverified label. It is not a verified portal export.

No screenshot is archived. Retrieval on 2026-10-27 returned a Cloudflare interstitial and no portal contents to save.

Questions the portal did not answer

Who can query the database?
Can external agencies search?
Which hotlists are loaded?
What justification is required, and who audits queries?
Are exports and backups deleted when the retention period ends?
How many alerts were false positives?
How many alerts resulted in an arrest or a recovered missing person?

Reported links and links not established

Collection, storage, analysis, and sharing are separate steps. A reported row is one a retrieved source describes. A not-established row is a claim or a capability with no agreement in this build. The table does not assert that the systems are interoperable.

Surveillance links. Reported is the sourced line. Not established is the open question.
From	To	What the record says	Status
Flock Safety transparency URL	City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety	Flock hosts a URL in that department’s name. The page contents were not retrieved on 2026-10-27.Flock Safety	Reported
Nevada Department of Public Safety	Fog Data Science	The April 10, 2026 Nevada Independent article reports a contract. The contract was not reviewed.The Nevada Independent	Reported
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department	Flock Safety	A February 22, 2026 Nevada Independent search extract says Metro described a 2023 agreement. The full article was not retrieved. The contract was not reviewed. This is not the City of Las Vegas portal.The Nevada Independent	Reported
Clark County School District	Flock Safety	An August 27, 2026 Nevada Independent snippet says CCSD confirmed an agreement. The contract was not reviewed.The Nevada Independent	Reported
City of Reno	Axon	An October 22, 2026 Nevada Independent snippet reports a council vote for an Axon agreement replacing Flock. The staff report was not fetched.The Nevada Independent	Reported
LVMPD Fusion Watch / real-time crime center	RTC buses or other outside camera feeds	A claimed link. No agreement is in this build.	Not established
Casino or business cameras	A police camera network	Specific integration unverified.	Not established
A Nevada plate-reader system	A national or interagency ALPR exchange	No exchange agreement is in this build. The LVMPD news extract about sharing is not this row.	Not established
Vigilant Solutions	A named Nevada agency	A March 23, 2026 AP snippet says jurisdictions use Vigilant. It names no Nevada agency in the text used here.Associated Press	Not established
Fog Data Science	Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department	The Fog article attributes the contract to Nevada DPS, not to LVMPD.The Nevada Independent	Not established
LVMPD cell-site simulator	Current operational use	The 2013 acquisition is a historical news report. The cited document was not re-read. Current use is not established.The Nevada Independent	Not established

Surveillance inventory

77 entries

Flock ALPR transparency portalDocumented Nevada deployment · City of Las Vegas Department of Public SafetyDocumented Nevada deployment

This card is only the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety. It is not LVMPD. User-provided snapshots in the panel above are not portal metrics.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Portal URL identified. Contents not retrieved on 2026-10-27. Not a contract review.

Flock publishes a transparency URL for the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety. Retrieval on October 27, 2026 returned a Cloudflare interstitial and no metrics. Vehicles detected, hotlist hits, searches, retention, and sharing settings were not read. This is not a live feed.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not read from the portal. This page does not describe unretrieved product settings as Nevada practice.
Data: Not retrieved from the portal.

Retention: Not retrieved. User research asserts 365 days. Verification required until the portal, a current policy, a contract, or a public record establishes the period for this agency and this system.

Sharing: Not retrieved from the portal.

Vendor: Flock Safety. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A public plate-reader network is mass collection if the unread portal in fact describes one. That fact was not retrieved. A single hotlist query would be a separate, narrower act.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety Flock portal: Carpenter does not decide an ALPR scan. Knotts is counterauthority for a public-road beeper, not a camera network. Jones decided a GPS device attached to a car, and the mosaic theory is not a majority rule. Whether any query of this portal required a warrant is unresolved because the portal was not read.

Case law

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Public-road beeper tracking did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts of Knotts. A beeper case is not a holding about a plate-reader camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones held that attaching and using a GPS tracker was a search. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a binding majority rule. Jones does not decide a plate reader.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information. It does not decide an ALPR scan.

What would have to be shown

Portal settings plus the contract, the hotlist names, query logs, and any stop or arrest that used a hit.

Next record to request

Open the portal when it is reachable without bypassing the interstitial, archive the page, and request the contract and audit logs.

The Flock contract, retention schedule, sharing settings, user list, hotlist names, and query audits for the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety.

Sources

Flock Safety transparency page named for the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety · Flock Safety · Not retrieved · url-identified-contents-not-retrieved

Flock ALPR, as described by LVMPD to a newspaperDocumented Nevada deployment · Las Vegas Metropolitan Police DepartmentDocumented Nevada deployment

LVMPD only. Not the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety portal, and not that portal’s unretrieved metrics.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Search extract of a February 22, 2026 news article. Full text not retrieved. Contract not reviewed.

A February 22, 2026 Nevada Independent search extract reports an LVMPD agreement with Flock in 2023. The extract says Metro told the paper of about 200 cameras on city and county infrastructure and of sharing with hundreds of agencies. Those are the newspaper’s attributions. The contract was not reviewed.
The same extract attributes a search count to Have I Been Flocked. That site was not audited, and the count is not used here.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established beyond the extract. Product settings were not read.
Data: License plates, as the subject of the article. Fields beyond that are not established.

Retention: Not established. The City of Las Vegas portal was not read, and its retention is not applied to LVMPD. Verification required before any 365-day claim is used for this agency.

Sharing: The extract says Metro told the paper it shares with hundreds of agencies. The sharing list is not in this build.

Vendor: Flock Safety. First seen: 2023, as the search extract reports the agreement. The full article was not retrieved.. Last verified: 2026-02-22. Updated 2026-10-27.

Cameras on public infrastructure, if the extract is accurate, are mass collection. A later search of one plate is a separate act. The extract is not the contract.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

LVMPD Flock, as reported: no holding in this library decides a plate-reader network. Carpenter does not decide ALPR. A gift allegation and a partner-tracking allegation are in the leads queue and are not findings on this card.

Case law

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Public-road beeper tracking did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts of Knotts. A beeper case is not a holding about a plate-reader camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones held that attaching and using a GPS tracker was a search. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a binding majority rule. Jones does not decide a plate reader.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information. It does not decide an ALPR scan.

What would have to be shown

The agreement, the camera list, the sharing schedule, audit logs, and any discipline record. A news sentence is not that file.

Next record to request

Retrieve the full February 22, 2026 article and the agreement. Keep this file separate from the City of Las Vegas portal.

The LVMPD Flock agreement, sites, retention, sharing list, and audit policy.

Policy page. An LVMPD automated-license-plate-reader policy title is identified on this site. The PDF is not attached. The policy page does not confirm the news figures.

Sources

Vegas police are big users of license plate readers · The Nevada Independent · 2026-02-22 · search-extract-full-text-not-retrieved

Flock agreement reported by the Clark County School DistrictDocumented Nevada deployment · Clark County School DistrictDocumented Nevada deployment

Clark County School District only. Not LVMPD and not the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety.

Unresolved question

What is documented

News snippet dated August 27, 2026. Contract not reviewed.

An August 27, 2026 Nevada Independent snippet reports that the Clark County School District confirmed a Flock agreement. The snippet also says Nevada has no ALPR statute. This page did not confirm that point in the Nevada Revised Statutes, and it did not read a contract.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Flock Safety. First seen: Not established. Last verified: 2026-08-27. Updated 2026-10-27.

A district plate-reader agreement, if the snippet is accurate, is a network. It is not evidence of cameras inside classrooms.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Clark County School District Flock, as reported: Carpenter does not decide a school-district plate reader. No ALPR statute is cited, because this page has not confirmed one. The snippet’s statement that Nevada has none is reporting, not a code review.

Case law

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Public-road beeper tracking did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts of Knotts. A beeper case is not a holding about a plate-reader camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones held that attaching and using a GPS tracker was a search. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a binding majority rule. Jones does not decide a plate reader.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information. It does not decide an ALPR scan.

What would have to be shown

The CCSD agreement, camera locations, who outside the district can search, and retention.

Next record to request

Request the CCSD agreement. Do not describe classroom cameras from this plate-reader snippet.

The CCSD Flock agreement and the search and retention policy.

Sources

Nevada legislators request a bill adding guardrails on license plate reader use · The Nevada Independent · 2026-08-27 · search-extract-full-text-not-retrieved

City of Reno plate readers under a reported Axon agreementDocumented Nevada deployment · City of RenoDocumented Nevada deployment

City of Reno only. The body-camera and drone mentions are the same snippet, repeated on those cards, and they do not establish LVMPD deployments.

Unresolved question

What is documented

News snippet dated October 22, 2026. Staff report not fetched. Not LVMPD.

An October 22, 2026 Nevada Independent snippet reports that the Reno City Council voted 5-2 for an eight-year, $21.8 million Axon agreement replacing Flock. The staff report was not fetched.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

The snippet says the agreement replaces Flock and also covers body cameras, Tasers, drones, and report-writing software. Those other pieces are news attribution, not specs this page read.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Axon, as named in the news snippet. Staff report not fetched.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: 2026-10-22. Updated 2026-10-27.

Road plate readers are mass collection if deployed as a network. The staff report that would show the design was not fetched.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

City of Reno plate readers, as reported: replacing one vendor with another does not decide the Fourth Amendment question. Carpenter does not decide ALPR. A Taser and report-writing software in the same snippet are not surveillance holdings.

Case law

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Public-road beeper tracking did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts of Knotts. A beeper case is not a holding about a plate-reader camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones held that attaching and using a GPS tracker was a search. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a binding majority rule. Jones does not decide a plate reader.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information. It does not decide an ALPR scan.

What would have to be shown

The council packet, the Axon contract, the plate-reader retention, and whether Flock data was deleted or transferred.

Next record to request

Fetch the staff report and the agreement. Keep Reno separate from Las Vegas agencies.

The Reno staff report, the Axon agreement, and the disposition of the prior Flock data.

Sources

Flock is out in Reno, but the city will still use license plate readers · The Nevada Independent · 2026-10-22 · search-extract-full-text-not-retrieved

Vigilant Solutions / Motorola plate readersDocumented elsewhere / Nevada use unverified · No agency namedDocumented elsewhere / Nevada use unverified

Documented elsewhere only as a vendor name in a news snippet. Nevada use is unverified. No agency is assigned.

Unresolved question

What is documented

AP snippet dated March 23, 2026. No Nevada agency, date, or contract is named in the text used here.

The snippet says jurisdictions also use Vigilant Solutions. It does not name a Nevada agency in the portion used for this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Vigilant Solutions, as named in an AP snippet. First seen: Not established. Last verified: 2026-03-23. Updated 2026-10-27.

Unknown until an agency and a deployment design are documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Vigilant plate readers: Nevada use is unverified. Carpenter does not decide an ALPR scan. Naming the vendor from a national snippet is not a Nevada contract.

Case law

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Public-road beeper tracking did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts of Knotts. A beeper case is not a holding about a plate-reader camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones held that attaching and using a GPS tracker was a search. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a binding majority rule. Jones does not decide a plate reader.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information. It does not decide an ALPR scan.

What would have to be shown

A Nevada agency’s Vigilant contract, if one exists, plus retention and sharing.

Next record to request

Do not send a request that guesses the agency. Identify the contracting Nevada agency first.

Any Nevada Vigilant or Motorola plate-reader contract, identified by agency before a request is sent.

Sources

Nevada license plate reader cameras · Associated Press · 2026-03-23 · search-extract-full-text-not-retrieved

Fixed and mobile plate readers other than the named contractsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Fixed and mobile plate readers other than the named contracts is listed as a capability. No Nevada contract for this item is in this build. Named Flock and Axon deployments are separate cards.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

If deployed against the public road, this is mass collection. A later search of one plate is a separate act. Neither is documented here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Fixed and mobile plate readers other than the named contracts: no decision in this library holds that a plate-reader scan is already an unreasonable search. Knotts is counterauthority for a public-road beeper. Jones is a GPS attachment case, and the mosaic theory is not a majority rule. Carpenter does not decide an ALPR scan. The Flock and Reno cards are the named contracts. This card is every other reader, and none is documented here.

Case law

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Public-road beeper tracking did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts of Knotts. A beeper case is not a holding about a plate-reader camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones held that attaching and using a GPS tracker was a search. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a binding majority rule. Jones does not decide a plate reader.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information. It does not decide an ALPR scan.

What would have to be shown

For Fixed and mobile plate readers other than the named contracts: the agency, the vendor contract, how long plates are stored, who can search history, and whether a particular stop or arrest used a hit.

Next record to request

Request the contract, retention schedule, search audit, and sharing list for Fixed and mobile plate readers other than the named contracts. Do not treat another agency's Flock portal as this record.

Contract, retention, audit logs, and sharing list for Fixed and mobile plate readers other than the named contracts.

Vehicle make, model, and color analyticsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Vehicle make, model, and color analytics is listed as a capability. No Nevada contract for this item is in this build. Named Flock and Axon deployments are separate cards.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

If deployed against the public road, this is mass collection. A later search of one plate is a separate act. Neither is documented here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Vehicle make, model, and color analytics: no decision in this library holds that a plate-reader scan is already an unreasonable search. Knotts is counterauthority for a public-road beeper. Jones is a GPS attachment case, and the mosaic theory is not a majority rule. Carpenter does not decide an ALPR scan. The unread Flock portal is not proof that any Nevada system stores vehicle attributes.

Case law

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Public-road beeper tracking did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts of Knotts. A beeper case is not a holding about a plate-reader camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones held that attaching and using a GPS tracker was a search. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a binding majority rule. Jones does not decide a plate reader.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information. It does not decide an ALPR scan.

What would have to be shown

For Vehicle make, model, and color analytics: the agency, the vendor contract, how long plates are stored, who can search history, and whether a particular stop or arrest used a hit.

Next record to request

Request the contract, retention schedule, search audit, and sharing list for Vehicle make, model, and color analytics. Do not treat another agency's Flock portal as this record.

Contract, retention, audit logs, and sharing list for Vehicle make, model, and color analytics.

Hotlists and NCIC lookups from a plate hitCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

No Nevada hotlist configuration is in this build. NCIC is a federal system. This card does not document a Nevada connection to it.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Loading a hotlist against every scanned plate is broad. Acting on one hit is narrower. Neither practice is documented here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Hotlist and NCIC lookups: a hotlist hit is not a confirmed crime, arrest, conviction, or successful investigation. No holding in this library says a hit is guilt. Carpenter does not decide the plate scan that produced the hit. Due-process questions arise only if a person was stopped or accused from a hit, which is not documented here.

Case law

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Public-road beeper tracking did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts of Knotts. A beeper case is not a holding about a plate-reader camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones held that attaching and using a GPS tracker was a search. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a binding majority rule. Jones does not decide a plate reader.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information. It does not decide an ALPR scan.

What would have to be shown

The hotlist source, the match rule, the false-positive count, and the report of any stop that followed a hit.

Next record to request

Ask each named agency which hotlists it loads and how a hit may be used. Do not infer guilt from a hit.

Hotlist names, match policy, false-positive counts, and stop reports tied to hits.

National or interagency ALPR exchangesCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

National or interagency ALPR exchanges is listed as a capability. No Nevada contract for this item is in this build. Named Flock and Axon deployments are separate cards.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

If deployed against the public road, this is mass collection. A later search of one plate is a separate act. Neither is documented here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

National or interagency ALPR exchanges: no decision in this library holds that a plate-reader scan is already an unreasonable search. Knotts is counterauthority for a public-road beeper. Jones is a GPS attachment case, and the mosaic theory is not a majority rule. Carpenter does not decide an ALPR scan. The LVMPD extract about sharing with hundreds of agencies is that card’s news report, not a copy of an exchange agreement.

Case law

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Public-road beeper tracking did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts of Knotts. A beeper case is not a holding about a plate-reader camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones held that attaching and using a GPS tracker was a search. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a binding majority rule. Jones does not decide a plate reader.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information. It does not decide an ALPR scan.

What would have to be shown

For National or interagency ALPR exchanges: the agency, the vendor contract, how long plates are stored, who can search history, and whether a particular stop or arrest used a hit.

Next record to request

Request the contract, retention schedule, search audit, and sharing list for National or interagency ALPR exchanges. Do not treat another agency's Flock portal as this record.

Contract, retention, audit logs, and sharing list for National or interagency ALPR exchanges.

Historical plate searchesCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Historical plate searches is listed as a capability. No Nevada contract for this item is in this build. Named Flock and Axon deployments are separate cards.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

If deployed against the public road, this is mass collection. A later search of one plate is a separate act. Neither is documented here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Historical plate searches: no decision in this library holds that a plate-reader scan is already an unreasonable search. Knotts is counterauthority for a public-road beeper. Jones is a GPS attachment case, and the mosaic theory is not a majority rule. Carpenter does not decide an ALPR scan. A historical search is a different act from the scan that stored the plate. No Nevada search log is in this build.

Case law

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Public-road beeper tracking did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts of Knotts. A beeper case is not a holding about a plate-reader camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones held that attaching and using a GPS tracker was a search. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a binding majority rule. Jones does not decide a plate reader.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information. It does not decide an ALPR scan.

What would have to be shown

For Historical plate searches: the agency, the vendor contract, how long plates are stored, who can search history, and whether a particular stop or arrest used a hit.

Next record to request

Request the contract, retention schedule, search audit, and sharing list for Historical plate searches. Do not treat another agency's Flock portal as this record.

Contract, retention, audit logs, and sharing list for Historical plate searches.

Traffic CCTVCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

No Nevada traffic-camera contract is in this build.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A traffic camera aimed at a public road is general observation. A saved archive that can be searched later is a different and undocumented step.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Traffic CCTV: no decision in this library holds that a public traffic image is already an unreasonable search. Ciraolo and Florida v. Riley are aerial cases and do not decide a traffic camera. Kyllo does not decide an ordinary public camera.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Naked-eye aerial observation of a yard was not a search on those facts. It does not decide a ground camera.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Helicopter observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented. It does not hold that every public image is lawful or unlawful.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo addressed thermal imaging of a home. It does not decide an ordinary public camera.

What would have to be shown

Who operates the camera, where it points, how long video is kept, and who can pull it.

Next record to request

Identify the operating agency before requesting video-retention and sharing rules.

Traffic-camera operator, retention, and sharing policy, after the agency is identified.

Freeway and NDOT camerasCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Listed as a question. No NDOT agreement is in this build. A Fusion Watch link is not established.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Highway cameras are general public observation if they exist as a network. That network is not documented here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

NDOT cameras: Nevada use of a specific freeway camera system is not documented here. No search holding in this library decides a highway camera, and none is cited as if it did.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Naked-eye aerial observation of a yard was not a search on those facts. It does not decide a ground camera.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Helicopter observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented. It does not hold that every public image is lawful or unlawful.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo addressed thermal imaging of a home. It does not decide an ordinary public camera.

What would have to be shown

The NDOT camera policy, retention, and any agreement that gives a police agency a live feed or an archive.

Next record to request

Request NDOT’s camera list and any sharing agreement with a police agency. Do not assume a feed into Fusion Watch.

NDOT camera inventory, retention, and police-sharing agreements.

RTC traffic monitoringCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

The Fusion Watch claim is a lead, not a documented integration.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Unknown. No feed list is in this build.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

RTC traffic monitoring: a claimed link from RTC cameras or buses to LVMPD Fusion Watch is not established. No case in this library decides that unproven link.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Naked-eye aerial observation of a yard was not a search on those facts. It does not decide a ground camera.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Helicopter observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented. It does not hold that every public image is lawful or unlawful.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo addressed thermal imaging of a home. It does not decide an ordinary public camera.

What would have to be shown

An RTC agreement, a feed list, and the retention of any video a police agency can see.

Next record to request

Request RTC and LVMPD sharing agreements. Until one is produced, draw the link as not established.

RTC camera and bus-feed agreements with any police agency.

Traffic sensorsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question only. No agency is assigned.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A count of vehicles is not the same record as a plate or a device identifier. Which one exists is not established.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Traffic sensors: no Nevada deployment and no constitutional theory are attached. A sensor that only counts vehicles is not documented as a tracker of people.

Case law

No decision in this library decides a traffic sensor. None is cited, so a plate-reader holding is not borrowed for a loop detector or a similar device.

What would have to be shown

The sensor type, whether it stores a plate or a device identifier, and who receives the data.

Next record to request

Identify whether any Nevada sensor stores an identifier before treating it as surveillance.

Sensor specifications showing whether a plate, Bluetooth address, or other identifier is stored.

Commercial parking plate readersCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Commercial parking plate readers is listed as a capability. No Nevada contract for this item is in this build. Named Flock and Axon deployments are separate cards.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

If deployed against the public road, this is mass collection. A later search of one plate is a separate act. Neither is documented here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Commercial parking plate readers: no decision in this library holds that a plate-reader scan is already an unreasonable search. Knotts is counterauthority for a public-road beeper. Jones is a GPS attachment case, and the mosaic theory is not a majority rule. Carpenter does not decide an ALPR scan. No parking vendor is named because none was documented.

Case law

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Public-road beeper tracking did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts of Knotts. A beeper case is not a holding about a plate-reader camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones held that attaching and using a GPS tracker was a search. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a binding majority rule. Jones does not decide a plate reader.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information. It does not decide an ALPR scan.

What would have to be shown

For Commercial parking plate readers: the agency, the vendor contract, how long plates are stored, who can search history, and whether a particular stop or arrest used a hit.

Next record to request

Request the contract, retention schedule, search audit, and sharing list for Commercial parking plate readers. Do not treat another agency's Flock portal as this record.

Contract, retention, audit logs, and sharing list for Commercial parking plate readers.

Connected-vehicle and telematics dataCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

No Nevada telematics contract is in this build.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A feed of many vehicles would be broad. A warrant for one car would be targeted. Neither is documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Telematics: no Nevada agency purchase of connected-vehicle location is documented. Jones does not become a holding about a factory-installed modem by analogy alone.

Case law

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones decided a GPS device the government attached. A manufacturer’s telematics feed is a different fact, and the analogy is unresolved.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter does not decide vehicle-telematics purchases from a company.

What would have to be shown

A contract or legal process showing an agency obtained telematics, for which vehicles, and for how long.

Next record to request

Ask agencies for telematics purchases and legal process. Do not infer them from plate readers.

Telematics contracts, subpoenas, and warrants, if any exist.

Toll and transponder recordsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Not established as a Nevada practice. No agency is assigned.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Unknown until a system is identified.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Toll and transponder records: the prompt lists them where applicable. No Nevada toll system is documented on this page, so no constitutional theory is attached.

Case law

No decision in this library decides toll or transponder records. Carpenter is not applied to them on this page.

What would have to be shown

A Nevada toll operator, a transponder database, and a police query log.

Next record to request

Confirm whether the trip in question used a Nevada toll road before requesting records.

Toll-operator identity and any police access policy, after a Nevada system is identified.

Fog Data Science location dataDocumented Nevada deployment · Nevada Department of Public SafetyDocumented Nevada deployment

Nevada Department of Public Safety only. Not LVMPD. The cell-site simulator sentence in the same article is a different card.

Unresolved question

What is documented

News article updated April 10, 2026, by Isabella Aldrete. Contract not reviewed. Full text of that article was retrieved for this page.

The article reports that Nevada DPS signed a Fog Data Science contract in January, at about $12,000 a year, with federal grant funding and a clerk sign-off, and that queries ran past 250 a month. Those figures are the article’s account. The contract PDF was not reviewed.
The article says DPS described the use as information collection, threat analysis, and criminal and terrorism investigations, and that DPS declined tactical detail.
The article says that after publication DPS said there would be no generalized tracking, including at traffic stops; that use would be limited to trained investigators and analysts in the Nevada Threat Analysis Center and the Investigation Division; that circumstances would be limited and controlled and would not involve broad or indiscriminate monitoring; that procurement laws were followed; and that methods would accord with applicable laws. That is the agency’s statement as reported. The agency document is not in this build.
The article reports that Fog chief privacy officer Mark McGinnis said the data is anonymized advertising data without personally identifiable information. This page did not read the contract or interview the company.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

The article describes 2022 Fog documents as discussing location over time and patterns of life. The user manual was not re-read. A product description is not a finding about how Nevada DPS queries are run.
Data: Advertising location data, as the company statement reported by the newspaper describes it. Query outputs are not in this build.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established. The article’s account used here does not document a sharing agreement with LVMPD.

Vendor: Fog Data Science. First seen: January, as the article reports the contract. This page does not add a year.. Last verified: 2026-04-10. Updated 2026-10-27.

DPS said, as reported, that use would not be broad or indiscriminate. The query logs that would test that sentence are not in this build. The product description in the manual this page did not re-read is not itself proof of a mass search.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Nevada DPS Fog data: Carpenter does not decide advertising-location data sold by a broker. The Stored Communications Act is not attached, because this page has not established that the feed is a stored electronic communication under those sections. Whether any query required a warrant is unresolved. The agency’s reported limits are part of the record and are not treated as a finding that the limits were followed.

Case law

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information from a carrier. It does not decide advertising-identifier or broker location data.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones decided a GPS device attached to a vehicle. Concurrences discuss longer tracking. The mosaic theory is not a majority rule. The analogy to a broker feed is unresolved.
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Knotts did not treat public-road beeper tracking as a Fourth Amendment violation on its facts. It is not a holding that a broker feed is lawful.

What would have to be shown

The contract, a sample of query justifications, the legal memo, and what a query returns about a person or a place.

Next record to request

Request the contract and the agency’s own statement. Do not attribute this contract to LVMPD.

The Fog contract, the grant file, the query policy, and the written post-publication DPS statement.

Sources

Nevada police may be tracking your phone’s location without a warrant · The Nevada Independent · 2026-04-10 · full-text-retrieved
Fog Data Science portal user manual, as cited by The Nevada Independent · DocumentCloud · 2022 · cited-by-news-not-reread

Mobile advertising-identifier tracking other than the named Fog contractCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

The documented Nevada broker contract is the Fog card. This card is the remaining capability.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Unknown. A geofence of many phones would be broad. One identifier under legal process would be narrower. Neither is documented here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Advertising identifiers outside the Nevada DPS Fog contract are not documented. Carpenter does not decide this kind of broker data. The Fog card is the only broker contract this page documents.

Case law

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information from a carrier. It does not decide advertising-identifier or broker location data.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones decided a GPS device attached to a vehicle. Concurrences discuss longer tracking. The mosaic theory is not a majority rule. The analogy to a broker feed is unresolved.
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Knotts did not treat public-road beeper tracking as a Fourth Amendment violation on its facts. It is not a holding that a broker feed is lawful.

What would have to be shown

A second contract, naming the agency, the broker, and the identifier stored.

Next record to request

Do not split the DPS Fog contract into a second confirmed deployment. Ask whether any other agency buys advertising identifiers.

Any advertising-identifier contract other than the DPS Fog file.

App SDK location brokersCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. The Fog article is not reused as proof of a second product.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Not established.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

App SDK location brokers are not documented as a Nevada purchase separate from the Fog reporting. Carpenter does not decide an SDK feed.

Case law

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information from a carrier. It does not decide advertising-identifier or broker location data.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones decided a GPS device attached to a vehicle. Concurrences discuss longer tracking. The mosaic theory is not a majority rule. The analogy to a broker feed is unresolved.
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). United States Supreme Court. Knotts did not treat public-road beeper tracking as a Fourth Amendment violation on its facts. It is not a holding that a broker feed is lawful.

What would have to be shown

The broker name, the apps in the feed, and the agency query log.

Next record to request

Ask Nevada DPS whether the Fog feed is an SDK product, and ask other agencies whether they buy a different one. Do not guess.

Broker name, data-flow description, and query policy.

Geofence and reverse-location queriesCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

No Nevada geofence is documented. Spurlock’s tower dump is a different card and a different agency.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A geofence is broad by design when it asks for every device in a place. That design is not documented as a Nevada practice.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Geofence queries: no Nevada geofence warrant or broker query is in this build. Carpenter does not become a geofence holding by analogy.

Case law

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter required a warrant for one person’s historical CSLI in the circumstances addressed. A geofence that returns every device in a place and time is a different request. The analogy is not the holding.
United States v. Spurlock, 778 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (D. Nev. 2025). Federal district court. Not circuit precedent.. Spurlock is a district-court tower-dump order, not a geofence holding and not circuit precedent. Suppression was denied.

What would have to be shown

The warrant or request, the size of the area, the number of devices returned, and what was discarded.

Next record to request

Request geofence warrants and broker reverse-location orders from each agency. None is on file here.

Geofence warrants, supporting affidavits, and the return listing how many devices were produced.

Carrier cell-site location informationCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Legal standard only. Nevada use is not documented.

Established legal holding

What is documented

The warrant rule is a Supreme Court holding for the circumstances Carpenter addressed. No Nevada agency CSLI practice is documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Carpenter addressed historical CSLI for investigation of particular phones. A tower dump of every phone is a different card.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.
18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2713. Stored Communications Act provisions for some provider-held records. Attached only to stored communications or carrier records, as the statute to read. Not a finding of a violation.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

A decision discusses legal process for this kind of technique. No Nevada agency practice is documented here.

Historical cell-site location information: Carpenter is the established holding for the circumstances it addressed, and the Stored Communications Act is the provider-records statute to read. Neither document is a Nevada agency file. No Nevada CSLI program is confirmed on this page.

Case law

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. A warrant is generally required for historical CSLI in the circumstances Carpenter addressed. That is not a finding about any Nevada agency.
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). United States Supreme Court. Smith held that a pen register for numbers dialed was not a search on its facts. Carpenter declined to extend that reasoning to historical CSLI.

What would have to be shown

The carrier order, the warrant or other process, the time span, and the Nevada agency that asked.

Next record to request

Request each agency’s CSLI policy. Do not treat the Fog contract as a CSLI order.

CSLI policies and a log of legal process, by agency, with subscriber identities redacted.

Tower dumps reviewed in United States v. SpurlockDocumented elsewhere / Nevada use unverified · No agency namedDocumented elsewhere / Nevada use unverified

Documented elsewhere: California police, reviewed by a Nevada federal judge. Nevada use by LVMPD or Nevada DPS is not established.

Established legal holding

What is documented

District-court order dated April 11, 2025, and the Nevada Independent’s account of a California police request. Not an LVMPD deployment.

The Nevada Independent account of United States v. Spurlock says California police obtained cellphone location for a Nevada resident and that data for more than 1,600 people was released. The district court denied suppression. The dump is not attributed to LVMPD.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

A tower dump, as the order uses that term, pulls location data for phones that used a tower. This card does not add a vendor.
Data: Tower-dump location data for phones in the dump the court described. The raw return is not republished here.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: The litigation record used here does not establish a Nevada-agency sharing agreement.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: 2025-04-11. Updated 2026-10-27.

The dump in Spurlock reached more than 1,600 people, as the newspaper described it. That breadth is why the court discussed a general warrant. It is not an LVMPD statistic.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

A decision discusses legal process for this kind of technique. No Nevada agency practice is documented here.

Tower dumps: the established holding in this library is a district-court order, not a Ninth Circuit holding. The court found a Fourth Amendment problem with warrant 20-SW-56 and still denied suppression. That order does not document an LVMPD tower dump.

Case law

United States v. Spurlock, 778 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (D. Nev. 2025). Federal district court. Not circuit precedent.. District court only. The warrant was described as a general warrant. Suppression was denied on the good-faith exception. Not a Ninth Circuit holding.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed one person’s historical CSLI. A dump of every phone on a tower is a different request. Spurlock is the order in this library that decided a dump, and it is not circuit precedent.

What would have to be shown

A Nevada agency’s own dump warrant, the number of phones, and the disposition of the data. Spurlock does not supply that file.

Next record to request

Read the order and the docket as the court record. Ask Nevada agencies separately whether they use tower dumps.

Tower-dump policies and warrants from Nevada agencies. The Spurlock file is a court record, not an LVMPD disclosure.

Sources

United States v. Spurlock tower-dump order · DocumentCloud · 2025-04-11 · opinion-text-retrieved
United States v. Spurlock docket · CourtListener · 2025-04-11 · full-text-retrieved
Nevada police may be tracking your phone’s location without a warrant · The Nevada Independent · 2026-04-10 · full-text-retrieved

LVMPD cell-site simulator, 2013 acquisition as reportedDocumented Nevada deployment · Las Vegas Metropolitan Police DepartmentDocumented Nevada deployment

Historical LVMPD procurement report only. Current deployment is not established. Airborne simulators are a separate, unverified card. This is not the Fog contract.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Historical news report of a 2013 acquisition. The cited document was not re-read. Current use is not established. The article does not say the acquisition was warrantless.

The April 10, 2026 Nevada Independent article says LVMPD acquired a cell-site simulator in 2013 and cites a document. This page did not re-read that document. The article says police have not released detailed information about the technology since then.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

A cell-site simulator can collect nearby phone identifiers. Whether this device does so, and how it is used now, is not established.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: 2013, as reported. Historical.. Last verified: 2026-04-10. Updated 2026-10-27.

A simulator aimed at one phone is targeted. A simulator that collects every phone nearby is broader. Which one LVMPD bought is not established, because the 2013 document was not re-read.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

LVMPD cell-site simulator: the 2013 acquisition is a historical report, not proof of current use and not proof of warrantless use. Lambis and Andrews are persuasive only. Carpenter does not decide a simulator.

Case law

United States v. Lambis, 197 F. Supp. 3d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). No source link was supplied for this citation.. Persuasive only. Not binding in Nevada.. A New York federal district court suppressed evidence involving warrantless simulator use. Not binding in Nevada. No source link was supplied.
State v. Andrews, 227 Md. App. 350 (2016). No source link was supplied for this citation.. Persuasive only. Not binding in Nevada.. Maryland appellate cell-site simulator decision, as the prompt identifies it. Persuasive only. No source link was supplied, and no holding is restated beyond that.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter decided historical CSLI from a carrier, not a cell-site simulator.
United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984). United States Supreme Court. Karo addressed monitoring that reveals information inside a residence. A simulator that reveals presence inside a home would raise that analogy. No such Nevada fact is in this build.

What would have to be shown

The purchase file, the current inventory, the use policy, and the legal process required before the device is turned on.

Next record to request

Re-read the 2013 document the article cites, then request the current policy. Do not describe present operations from the article alone.

The 2013 procurement file, the current policy, and a use log with target identities redacted.

Sources

Nevada police may be tracking your phone’s location without a warrant · The Nevada Independent · 2026-04-10 · full-text-retrieved
Document the Nevada Independent cites for a 2013 LVMPD cell-site simulator acquisition · DocumentCloud · 2013 · cited-by-news-not-reread

Airborne cell-site simulatorsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Explicitly unverified. Distinct from the 2013 LVMPD acquisition report.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Not established.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Airborne cell-site simulators are unverified. No Nevada aircraft, contract, or use is in this build. None is inferred from the 2013 ground-simulator report.

Case law

United States v. Lambis, 197 F. Supp. 3d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). No source link was supplied for this citation.. Persuasive only. Not binding in Nevada.. Lambis is a ground-simulator suppression order from another district. It does not decide an aircraft, and it is not binding in Nevada.

What would have to be shown

An aircraft record, a device inventory, and a flight log tied to the simulator.

Next record to request

Do not publish this as a Nevada practice. Ask agencies whether any aircraft carries a simulator.

Aviation unit equipment lists and simulator policies.

Pen registers and trap-and-trace devicesCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Statute identified. Nevada use not documented.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A pen register is typically targeted at one line. That description is the legal category, not a documented Nevada order.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.
18 U.S.C. §§ 3121–3127. Pen-register and trap-and-trace provisions. Attached only to that technique, as the statute to read. Not a finding of a violation.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Pen registers: federal statute 18 U.S.C. §§ 3121–3127 is the provision to read. Smith is counterauthority on its facts. No Nevada pen-register log is in this build, so no violation is claimed.

Case law

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). United States Supreme Court. Smith held that a pen register recording numbers dialed was not a search on those facts.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter did not decide a traditional pen register for numbers dialed.

What would have to be shown

The order, the target, the dates, and the agency. A statute on the books is not a Nevada use.

Next record to request

Request pen-register policies and a count of orders. Do not treat a cell-site simulator as a pen register without a record that says so.

Pen-register policy and order log, with target identities redacted.

Call-detail recordsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. No Nevada CDR program is documented.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A request for one number is targeted. A request for every number that called a tower is closer to a dump and is not documented here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.
18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2713. Stored Communications Act provisions for some provider-held records. Attached only to stored communications or carrier records, as the statute to read. Not a finding of a violation.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Call-detail records: the Stored Communications Act is the provider-records statute to read. No Nevada agency’s CDR practice is documented, and Carpenter is not applied as if it decided every phone bill.

Case law

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). United States Supreme Court. Smith addressed numbers dialed via a pen register. Call-detail records held by a carrier are a related third-party fact pattern, not the same holding.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter was historical location, not a holding that every call-detail record requires the same warrant.

What would have to be shown

The legal process, the date range, and whether location fields were included or only numbers and times.

Next record to request

Request the CDR policy and a blank example of the fields requested.

Call-detail policy, sample field list, and the legal process required.

Emergency location requestsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Not documented as a Nevada investigative program.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

An emergency request for one caller is targeted. This page does not document any other use.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Emergency location requests are a different legal process from a criminal CSLI order. No Nevada exigent-request log is in this build, so no constitutional theory is attached.

Case law

No decision in this library decides an emergency location request to a carrier. Carpenter is not applied to 911 location on this page.

What would have to be shown

The policy that separates emergency requests from investigative requests, and a count of each.

Next record to request

Request the emergency-request policy. Do not merge it with the Fog contract or with Carpenter.

Emergency location policy and aggregate counts.

Device extraction and cellphone search after seizureCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Legal standard only. Nevada use is not documented.

Established legal holding

What is documented

Riley v. California states the warrant rule for a phone searched incident to arrest. No Nevada extraction program is documented.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Searching one seized phone is targeted collection. It is not mass surveillance of people who were not arrested. No Nevada volume is documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

A decision discusses legal process for this kind of technique. No Nevada agency practice is documented here.

Device extraction: Riley is the established holding for searching a seized phone incident to arrest. No Nevada forensic lab, vendor, or warrant practice is documented on this page.

Case law

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014). United States Supreme Court. A warrant is generally required to search digital information on a cellphone seized incident to arrest. That holding does not identify a Nevada lab or vendor.

What would have to be shown

The tool name, the warrant or consent form, and the agency unit that runs the extraction.

Next record to request

Request the digital-forensics policy. Do not infer a vendor from Riley.

Extraction policy, warrant template, and vendor contract, if a unit exists.

Commercial identity-resolution datasetsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. Fog’s reported statement that its data lacks personally identifiable information is on the Fog card and is not proof of a second product.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Not established.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Identity-resolution datasets are not documented as a Nevada purchase. No statute beyond the public-records law is attached, because no product and no legal theory are established.

Case law

No decision in this library decides a commercial identity-resolution product. None is forced onto this card.

What would have to be shown

The vendor, the fields joined, and the agency that can query them.

Next record to request

Ask agencies for identity-resolution contracts by vendor name only after a record names the vendor.

Identity-resolution contracts, once a vendor is identified from a record rather than a guess.

Fixed CCTVCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

No unnamed CCTV contract is documented. SafeCam is its own card.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A fixed public camera is general observation. An archive that is searchable by face or plate would be a further step, and that analytic is a different card.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Fixed CCTV: a public camera image is not, on this page, treated as already adjudicated unconstitutional. No Nevada camera contract is attached to this card.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Naked-eye aerial observation of a yard was not a search on those facts. It does not decide a ground camera.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Helicopter observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented. It does not hold that every public image is lawful or unlawful.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo addressed thermal imaging of a home. It does not decide an ordinary public camera.

What would have to be shown

The owner, the aim of the lens, retention, and who can export video.

Next record to request

Separate traffic cameras, SafeCam, and body cameras. This card is only unnamed fixed CCTV.

Fixed-camera inventory and retention for a named agency.

PTZ camerasCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. No Nevada PTZ deployment is in this build.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A camera that can be aimed at one person is more targeted than a fixed view. Neither mode is documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

PTZ cameras: operator control of pan, tilt, and zoom is not documented for any Nevada system. Kyllo does not decide a public zoom camera, and no case here holds that a public image is already unlawful.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Naked-eye aerial observation of a yard was not a search on those facts. It does not decide a ground camera.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Helicopter observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented. It does not hold that every public image is lawful or unlawful.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo addressed thermal imaging of a home. It does not decide an ordinary public camera.

What would have to be shown

Whether the camera is staffed, whether zoom is recorded, and how long the recording is kept.

Next record to request

Request PTZ policies from a named agency after a camera is identified.

PTZ inventory, operator rules, and retention.

Covert and pole camerasCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. No Nevada covert-camera program is documented.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A covert camera is usually targeted at a place. It is not mass street surveillance unless the record shows that. The record does not.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Covert and pole cameras: no Nevada deployment is documented. Any Fourth Amendment claim would depend on where the camera points, how long it runs, and whether it looks into a home. Those facts are absent.

Case law

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones involved a device attached to a vehicle. A hidden pole camera aimed at a home raises a different analogy and is not that holding.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo dealt with a thermal image of a home. A visible-light camera pointed at a home is not the same technique.

What would have to be shown

The warrant or policy, the address type, and the number of days recorded.

Next record to request

Request covert-camera policy and a warrant template. Do not infer covert cameras from ordinary CCTV.

Covert-camera policy, approval chain, and retention.

LVMPD SafeCam registryCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Lead only. LVMPD is the agency named in the lead. The registry itself was not retrieved, so the deployment grade stays an investigative question.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A voluntary registry of private cameras is not the same as a city-owned camera network. Which one SafeCam is cannot be said from this page.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

SafeCam: a public-private camera registry is a lead, not a documented integration. No participation list is in this build, and no case is applied as if the registry had been read.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Naked-eye aerial observation of a yard was not a search on those facts. It does not decide a ground camera.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Helicopter observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented. It does not hold that every public image is lawful or unlawful.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo addressed thermal imaging of a home. It does not decide an ordinary public camera.

What would have to be shown

The registry rules, the participant list, whether police can view live video or only ask for a copy, and retention.

Next record to request

Request the SafeCam policy and participant terms. Leave the integration unverified until they arrive.

SafeCam policy, participant agreement, and access rules.

Business and casino camera sharingCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Specific integration unverified. No agency is assigned.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Not established.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Casino and business camera sharing is specifically unverified. No agreement is in this build, and no constitutional theory is attached to a relationship that is not documented.

Case law

No decision in this library decides casino camera sharing. None is cited for an integration this page has not seen.

What would have to be shown

The agreement, the casinos, whether the feed is live, and the retention.

Next record to request

Request camera-sharing agreements. Do not draw a solid line to any casino.

Casino and business camera-sharing agreements with a named police agency.

Body-worn and dash camerasDocumented Nevada deployment · City of RenoDocumented Nevada deployment

City of Reno news snippet only. LVMPD body-worn and dash cameras are not documented on this page.

Unresolved question

What is documented

The October 22, 2026 Reno snippet says the Axon agreement includes body cameras. Staff report not fetched. LVMPD body or dash cameras are not established by that sentence.

The Reno snippet lists body cameras among the items in the reported Axon agreement. Dash cameras are not separately stated there.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Axon is named only for the City of Reno snippet. No LVMPD vendor is established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: 2026-10-22. Updated 2026-10-27.

A body camera records an encounter an officer is in. That is targeted collection around the officer, not a street network. Dash cameras are not established even for Reno.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Body-worn cameras in the Reno snippet are a reported procurement line, not a holding about recording policy. No case in this library decides a body-camera program. LVMPD is not covered by the Reno sentence.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Naked-eye aerial observation of a yard was not a search on those facts. It does not decide a ground camera.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Helicopter observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented. It does not hold that every public image is lawful or unlawful.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo addressed thermal imaging of a home. It does not decide an ordinary public camera.

What would have to be shown

The Reno contract line, activation rules, and retention. Separately, any LVMPD body-camera policy, which is not in this build.

Next record to request

Read the Reno staff report. Do not copy this card onto LVMPD.

The Reno Axon body-camera scope and retention. An LVMPD request only after an LVMPD record is identified.

Sources

Flock is out in Reno, but the city will still use license plate readers · The Nevada Independent · 2026-10-22 · search-extract-full-text-not-retrieved

Facial recognitionCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Investigative question. The policy title is identified. The PDF is not attached. No deployment is confirmed.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A one-to-one check of a person in custody is narrower than running every camera frame against a gallery. Neither mode is documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Facial recognition: no Nevada agency, vendor, or date is documented. A policy title on this site is not the deployment. A false match would raise a due-process question only after a person was stopped or charged because of a match, which is not a fact in this build. No categorical ban is stated here.

Case law

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter does not decide a face match against a mugshot or any other database.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo does not decide facial recognition.

What would have to be shown

The agency, the vendor, the probe photo source, the candidate database, the match threshold, and any human review.

Next record to request

Use the policy page as a title index only, then request the actual facial-recognition policy and contract.

Facial-recognition contract, database list, threshold, audit, and error log.

Policy page. Policy title identified on this site. The source PDF is not attached. This is not a confirmed deployment.

Fingerprint and palm-print systemsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Not documented in this build. Not claimed as absent from Nevada. The record is simply not here.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Prints taken from a person who has been arrested are targeted. An unattended public reader would be different and is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Fingerprint and palm-print systems are ordinary booking tools in many departments, and this page still has no Nevada inventory, vendor, or policy. No constitutional theory is attached without that record.

Case law

No decision in this library decides a fingerprint or palm-print database. None is borrowed from the facial-recognition question.

What would have to be shown

The system name, who is enrolled, and whether prints are taken only at booking or from an unattended reader.

Next record to request

Request the livescan or AFIS contract and the enrollment policy. Do not treat booking prints as a public-camera face scan.

Fingerprint and palm-print system contract and enrollment rules.

Iris, voice, gait, and behavioral biometricsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Deployment verification required. No Nevada use is documented.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Not established.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Iris, voice, gait, and behavioral biometrics require deployment verification. None is documented. No constitutional theory is attached to an empty record.

Case law

No decision in this library decides iris, voice, gait, or behavioral biometrics. Deployment verification is required before a case is applied.

What would have to be shown

A contract naming the biometric, the agency, and the enrollment rule.

Next record to request

Do not publish these as Nevada systems. Ask agencies for any biometric contract other than fingerprints.

Contracts for iris, voice, gait, or behavioral biometrics.

Video analytics and person or vehicle reidentificationCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. Not established for any Nevada agency.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Reidentification across a camera network would be broad tracking. A single-camera motion alert would be narrower. Neither is documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Video reidentification would let an agency follow a person or vehicle across cameras. No Nevada analytic is documented. A false identification would raise a due-process question only with a record that a person was accused. That record is absent. Carpenter does not decide this analytic.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Naked-eye aerial observation of a yard was not a search on those facts. It does not decide a ground camera.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Helicopter observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented. It does not hold that every public image is lawful or unlawful.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo addressed thermal imaging of a home. It does not decide an ordinary public camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Long-term tracking discussed in Jones concurrences is not a majority holding and is not a holding about video reidentification.

What would have to be shown

The software name, whether it links cameras, how long tracks are stored, and any human review.

Next record to request

Ask for video-analytic contracts separately from camera hardware contracts.

Video-analytics and reidentification contracts, retention, and error rates.

Police helicoptersCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

No Nevada police helicopter program is documented in the sources used for this page.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A flight over a call is narrower than a recorded patrol of a whole city. Neither pattern is documented here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Police helicopters: Ciraolo and Florida v. Riley limit the claim and are counterauthority for naked-eye or ordinary aerial observation. They do not hold that every flight is lawful. No Nevada aviation unit’s camera or retention policy is in this build.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Naked-eye observation from public airspace was not a search on Ciraolo’s facts.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Helicopter observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo does not decide a helicopter that is not using a sense-enhancing device aimed at a home interior.

What would have to be shown

The aircraft, the sensor, whether video is recorded, and how long it is kept.

Next record to request

Request the aviation-unit sensor list and retention. Do not treat a helicopter as a drone or as a thermal-imaging program without that list.

Aviation unit inventory, sensor list, and video retention.

FLIR and other thermal imagingCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Holding identified. Nevada use not documented.

Established legal holding

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Kyllo was a home search, which is targeted at a house. A thermal camera scanning streets is a different and undocumented use.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

A decision discusses legal process for this kind of technique. No Nevada agency practice is documented here.

Thermal imaging of a home is an established holding in Kyllo for the circumstances that case addressed. No Nevada FLIR inventory is documented, so Kyllo is not a finding about a Nevada flight.

Case law

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Thermal imaging of a home with sense-enhancing technology was a search in the circumstances Kyllo addressed. That is not a Nevada deployment.
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Ciraolo was naked-eye observation, not thermal imaging.

What would have to be shown

The sensor model, whether it was aimed at a home, and the warrant or its absence.

Next record to request

Request the thermal-imager inventory and the warrant rule the unit uses.

FLIR or thermal-imager inventory, mounting (air or ground), and warrant policy.

Drones and unmanned aircraftDocumented Nevada deployment · City of RenoDocumented Nevada deployment

City of Reno, as reported, only. LVMPD drone use is not confirmed. Drone-as-first-responder docking is a separate card and is not established.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Reno news snippet dated October 22, 2026, lists drones in the Axon agreement. Staff report not fetched. The LVMPD sUAS policy title is not a confirmed deployment.

The Reno snippet includes drones among reported Axon items. It does not state a drone count or a sensor type.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Axon is named only in the City of Reno snippet. No LVMPD drone vendor is established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: 2026-10-22. Updated 2026-10-27.

A drone sent to one call is targeted. A docked drone that launches for every call would be broader. The Reno snippet does not say which.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Drones: the Reno snippet is a procurement line, not a flight log. Ciraolo and Florida v. Riley are counterauthority for ordinary aerial observation and do not decide recorded drone video. The LVMPD policy titles are not a deployment.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Naked-eye aerial observation was not a search on those facts. It does not decide recorded drone video.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Florida v. Riley does not decide a drone program.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo applies, if at all, when a drone sensor reveals the interior of a home. No such Nevada flight is documented.

What would have to be shown

The Reno drone scope of work, and, separately, any LVMPD flight log. The policy PDF is not attached.

Next record to request

Fetch the Reno staff report. Keep the LVMPD policy titles unverified until the PDF is attached.

The Reno drone portion of the Axon agreement. LVMPD sUAS records after the policy PDF is obtained.

Policy page. LVMPD policy titles 6.545 and 6.550 are identified on this site. The PDFs are not attached. The 6.550 page is /policies/6-550-uas-investigations/. Neither title confirms a deployment. NRS 493 is cited on the policy page and is not adopted as verified here.

Sources

Flock is out in Reno, but the city will still use license plate readers · The Nevada Independent · 2026-10-22 · search-extract-full-text-not-retrieved

Drone-as-first-responder and docking stationsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. Not established from the Reno drone mention.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Automatic launch on every call would be broader than a pilot choosing one flight. Neither is documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Drone-as-first-responder docking is not documented for Reno or for LVMPD. The Reno snippet names drones and does not name docks or automatic launch.

Case law

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Florida v. Riley does not decide a docked drone that launches on a dispatch.

What would have to be shown

A dock location, a launch rule, and whether video is retained after the call.

Next record to request

Do not infer docks from the word drones in the Reno snippet.

Docking-station contracts and automatic-launch policies.

Gunshot detectionCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Policy title identified for LVMPD. Deployment not confirmed. Not a finding about any alert.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Sensors across a neighborhood are broad collection of a sound class. They are not documented as installed.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Gunshot detection: an alert is not proof of a shooting, and this page does not repeat an unverified policy sentence as a quote. No Nevada installation is confirmed. The policy PDF is not attached.

Case law

No decision in this library decides gunshot detection. The ShotSpotter policy page is a title, not an opinion.

What would have to be shown

The vendor contract, sensor map, retention of audio, and whether the system records voices or only a gunshot classification.

Next record to request

Attach the policy PDF before quoting it. Request the contract and the audio-retention setting. Keep environmental recording on the next card.

Gunshot-detection contract, sensor map, and a written answer on whether audio is stored.

Policy page. Policy title identified on this site. The source PDF is not attached. This is not a confirmed deployment.

Environmental audio recordingCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Unverified. Not established by the ShotSpotter policy title.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Conversation recording across public space would be broad. It is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2523. Federal wiretap provisions. Attached only to real-time content interception, as the statute to read. Not a finding of a violation, and no Nevada interception is documented here.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Environmental audio is separate from gunshot detection. Recording of conversations is unverified. The wiretap statute is the provision to read if that capability is later documented. It is not a finding.

Case law

No decision in this library decides environmental microphones on a gunshot sensor. The wiretap statute is listed as the provision to read if audio of conversations is stored. This page does not find that any sensor does that.

What would have to be shown

A specification showing whether the sensor stores voices, and for how long.

Next record to request

Ask the vendor question in writing. Do not treat a gunshot classifier as a conversation recorder.

Sensor specification on audio storage, separate from the gunshot-alert policy.

Social-media monitoring and OSINTCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Investigative question. No vendor is assigned.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A keyword feed of public posts can be broad. A warrant for one account is targeted legal process and is the next card. Neither is documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

First Amendment, Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Social-media monitoring: no Nevada vendor, keyword list, or contract is documented. NAACP is an analogy that waits for a factual predicate. It is not a holding that OSINT is unlawful.

Case law

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). United States Supreme Court. NAACP protects against compelled disclosure of lawful association. It does not hold that reading a public post is unconstitutional. A monitoring program aimed at political or religious groups would need its own facts.

What would have to be shown

The vendor, the keywords, whether non-public accounts are included, and any rule about protests or religious groups.

Next record to request

Request social-media monitoring contracts and keyword policies. Publish a vendor only when the contract names one.

Social-media monitoring contract, keyword list, and retention.

Public-post collectionCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. Distinct from non-public account warrants.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

An archive of many public posts is broad. It is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

First Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Collecting public posts is not documented as a Nevada program. This page does not claim that reading a public post is already unconstitutional.

Case law

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). United States Supreme Court. NAACP was compelled disclosure of a membership list. It does not decide collection of posts the speaker already published.

What would have to be shown

Whether posts are stored, for how long, and whether the archive is searchable by person.

Next record to request

Include public-post archives in any social-media records request. Do not assume they exist.

Public-post archive policy, if an agency has one.

Network and association analysisCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. No Nevada graph product is documented.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A graph of a whole city would be broad. A chart of one investigation’s suspects is targeted case work. Neither file is here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

First Amendment, Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Network analysis of who knows whom is not documented. The First Amendment analogy is unresolved without a dataset and a purpose.

Case law

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). United States Supreme Court. Association analysis raises NAACP only if the record shows collection of lawful political, religious, or membership ties. That record is not here.

What would have to be shown

The dataset, the link rule, and whether lawful association is a field.

Next record to request

Request analytic-product descriptions. Do not draw a social graph from a plate reader.

Association-analysis software contracts and field lists.

Warrants and subpoenas for platform recordsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Legal process is distinguished here from mass collection. Nevada volume is not documented.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Targeted legal process, unless a returned file shows a request for a whole platform. No such file is here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.
18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2713. Stored Communications Act provisions for some provider-held records. Attached only to stored communications or carrier records, as the statute to read. Not a finding of a violation.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Legal process to a platform is targeted collection when it names an account. It is not mass surveillance by itself. The Stored Communications Act is the statute to read for many stored provider records. No Nevada warrant log is in this build, and no violation is claimed.

Case law

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter does not decide every subpoena for an account’s stored content or subscriber information.

What would have to be shown

The process type, the account, and the date range. Aggregate counts are enough for a first request.

Next record to request

Request a count of platform warrants and subpoenas by year. Do not publish any account name.

Annual counts of platform warrants, orders, and subpoenas, and the policy that chooses among them.

IP addresses and ISP subscriber recordsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A lookup of one IP is targeted. Bulk IP collection is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.
18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2713. Stored Communications Act provisions for some provider-held records. Attached only to stored communications or carrier records, as the statute to read. Not a finding of a violation.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

ISP subscriber lookups are not documented as a Nevada volume or policy. No case is stretched to cover them.

Case law

No decision in this library decides an ISP subscriber lookup. The Stored Communications Act is listed as the provision to read, not as a holding.

What would have to be shown

The legal process used for a subscriber lookup and the retention of the result.

Next record to request

Request the ISP-lookup policy.

ISP subscriber-request policy and annual counts.

DNS logsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. Not a documented practice.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

DNS for one subscriber is targeted. A resolver log for many users would be broad. Neither is documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

DNS logs are not documented as a Nevada police collection. No constitutional theory is attached.

Case law

No decision in this library decides police use of DNS logs.

What would have to be shown

A contract or legal process showing an agency receives DNS queries, and for which users.

Next record to request

Ask whether any agency receives DNS data. A no, in writing, closes the question.

DNS collection agreements, if any.

Wi-Fi and Bluetooth device trackingCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. Traffic sensors that only count cars are a different card.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Sensors along a road that log device addresses would be broad. None are documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Wi-Fi and Bluetooth tracking are not documented in Nevada. Carpenter does not decide them. No sensor contract is in this build.

Case law

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter does not decide Wi-Fi or Bluetooth sensing.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. A sensor that follows a device over time invites a Jones analogy. Jones itself was a GPS box on a car. The mosaic theory is not a majority rule.

What would have to be shown

The sensor, the identifier stored, the retention, and the agency.

Next record to request

Include device-identifier sensors in traffic-sensor requests. Do not assume a traffic counter stores a Bluetooth address.

Wi-Fi and Bluetooth sensor contracts and field lists.

Automated keyword searchesCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. No keyword is stated because none was documented.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A standing keyword can watch many speakers. It is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

First Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Automated keyword search is not documented. No keyword is invented on this page.

Case law

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). United States Supreme Court. A keyword aimed at a political or religious group raises an association question only with the keyword list and the purpose. Neither is here.

What would have to be shown

The keyword list, the platforms searched, and the retention of hits.

Next record to request

Request keyword lists under the social-media request. Publish a keyword only from the produced list.

Keyword lists and the systems they run against.

Predictive analyticsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. Distinct from the records-system risk-scoring card only in channel. Neither is documented. This card is the software category. The records card is the installation inside a records system.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A score on every patrol district is broad. It is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourteenth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Predictive analytics are not documented. A due-process or equal-protection question would need the score, the inputs, and a decision that used the score. None of those is here. No violation is claimed.

Case law

No decision in this library decides a predictive-policing score. None is applied.

What would have to be shown

The model name, the inputs, the agency, and any decision that treats the score as a basis for a stop.

Next record to request

Ask for predictive-policing or risk-model contracts by name only after a budget line identifies one.

Predictive-analytics contracts, input lists, and use rules.

Deep packet inspection and real-time content interceptionCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Explicitly unverified. Absent records, this is not a Nevada practice.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Real-time interception of communications is targeted when a court order names a line, and it would be something else entirely if it had no target. Neither is documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.
18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2523. Federal wiretap provisions. Attached only to real-time content interception, as the statute to read. Not a finding of a violation, and no Nevada interception is documented here.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Deep packet inspection and real-time content interception are unverified. No Nevada program is documented. The wiretap provisions are listed so a later record can be compared with them.

Case law

No decision in this library decides deep packet inspection by a Nevada agency. The wiretap statute is the provision to read if real-time content interception is later documented. It is not a finding.

What would have to be shown

Equipment, a court order under the wiretap statute, and the agency.

Next record to request

Leave this unverified. Ask agencies, in one question, whether they intercept content in real time.

Any wiretap orders and DPI equipment purchases.

LVMPD real-time crime center and Fusion WatchCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Lead. LVMPD is the agency in the lead. The deployment is not confirmed by a retrieved document. Claimed RTC and other outside feeds are not established.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A center that can see many feeds would be broad. The feed list is the missing fact.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Fusion Watch and a real-time crime center are names in the lead list. No floor plan, feed list, or policy was retrieved. The RTC link is not established. No constitutional theory is attached to an undescribed room.

Case law

No decision in this library decides Fusion Watch. A camera case is not applied to a center this page has not documented.

What would have to be shown

The unit’s policy, the list of feeds, the staffing, and the retention of what an analyst can see.

Next record to request

Request the Fusion Watch policy and feed list. Keep RTC as not established until the agreement arrives.

Fusion Watch or real-time crime center policy, feed list, and retention.

Nevada Threat Analysis CenterDocumented Nevada deployment · Nevada Department of Public SafetyDocumented Nevada deployment

Nevada Department of Public Safety, and only the naming sentence. Not LVMPD. Not a second Fog contract.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Named in the post-publication DPS statement as reported on April 10, 2026. No charter, system list, or sharing agreement was retrieved.

The Nevada Independent reports that DPS, after publication, said Fog use would be limited to trained investigators and analysts in the Nevada Threat Analysis Center and the Investigation Division. That sentence is the documented fact. It is not an organization chart.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: 2026-04-10. Updated 2026-10-27.

Not established. The agency said use would be limited. The logs are not here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Nevada Threat Analysis Center: the only documented point is that DPS named it, as reported, as a place where trained staff would use Fog under stated limits. Sharing agreements are not in this build. No holding decides the center.

Case law

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. The center is named in a Fog statement. Carpenter does not decide the center, and it does not decide Fog.

What would have to be shown

The center’s charter, the systems it can query, and the sharing agreements.

Next record to request

Request the charter and the sharing agreements. Do not copy the Fog dollar figure onto this card as a budget.

NTAC charter, system list, and sharing agreements.

Sources

Nevada police may be tracking your phone’s location without a warrant · The Nevada Independent · 2026-04-10 · full-text-retrieved

Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism CenterCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Policy title only. Not a confirmed description of the center’s systems.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Unknown until the policy and the sharing agreements are read.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

First Amendment, Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center: a policy title is identified and the PDF is not attached. Functions and sharing agreements are not documented on this page. No violation is claimed from the title.

Case law

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). United States Supreme Court. An intelligence center raises an association question only if it holds records of lawful political or religious activity. The policy PDF that would show the rules is not attached.

What would have to be shown

The policy PDF, the participant agencies, and the sharing agreements.

Next record to request

Read the policy PDF when it is attached. Request the sharing agreements separately.

SNCTC policy, participant list, and sharing agreements.

Policy page. Policy title identified on this site. The source PDF is not attached. This is not a confirmed deployment.

NCICCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

The system exists as a federal system. Nevada terminal practice is not documented here.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

An NCIC query is ordinarily one record at a time. Bulk use is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourteenth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

NCIC is a federal system. A Nevada terminal, a hit policy, and a misuse audit are not in this build. An NCIC return is not a conviction.

Case law

No decision in this library decides an NCIC query. A hotlist hit is not a confirmed crime, and this card does not treat an NCIC return as guilt.

What would have to be shown

The terminal agreement, who may query, and the audit of queries.

Next record to request

Request the NCIC terminal policy and misuse discipline rules.

NCIC access policy, training requirement, and audit summary.

N-DExCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. No contribution agreement is in this build.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A national index of incident records is broad if an agency contributes everything. That choice is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

N-DEx participation by a Nevada agency is not documented. No constitutional theory is attached.

Case law

No decision in this library decides N-DEx participation.

What would have to be shown

The participation agreement and the record types contributed.

Next record to request

Ask LVMPD and Nevada DPS whether they contribute to N-DEx, and request the agreement if they do.

N-DEx participation agreement and contribution rules.

Gang databases and criminal-intelligence filesCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Investigative question. No Nevada gang-file policy was retrieved.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A file on designated people is a list, not a camera network. How a person gets on the list is the missing fact.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Gang and criminal-intelligence files are not documented. Criteria for entry, notice, and appeal are unknown. A First Amendment question exists only if lawful association is an entry criterion. That criterion is not in this build.

Case law

No decision in this library decides a Nevada gang database. No statute is invented for it.

What would have to be shown

The entry criteria, the review cycle, the notice rule, and the appeal path.

Next record to request

Request the gang-file policy. Do not publish a person’s gang label. None is known to this page.

Gang-designation criteria, retention, notice, and appeal policy.

Suspicious activity reportsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. Not established as a feed into NTAC or SNCTC.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A tip about one event is narrow. A standing program that collects tips about lawful activity would be broader. The form is not here.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

First Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Suspicious activity reporting is not documented for a named Nevada center. No report is quoted because none was retrieved.

Case law

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). United States Supreme Court. A report about lawful political or religious activity would raise an association question. No such report is in this build.

What would have to be shown

The form, the receiving center, the retention, and any rule that excludes lawful First Amendment activity.

Next record to request

Request the SAR policy from NTAC and SNCTC after their charters identify them as recipients. Do not assume they are the recipients.

Suspicious-activity-report form, recipient, and retention.

CAD and 911 dataCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Not documented beyond the fact that 911 exists. No analytic reuse is established.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Dispatch is a record of calls for service. Reuse as a tracking database is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

CAD and 911 archives are operational records. No Nevada retention or police-analytics reuse is documented, so no constitutional theory is attached. Call audio is not requested by this page as a surveillance product.

Case law

No decision in this library decides a computer-aided-dispatch archive.

What would have to be shown

The retention of dispatch data and any copy that an analytic system receives.

Next record to request

Request the CAD retention schedule and the list of systems that receive a copy.

CAD and 911 data-retention schedule and downstream system list.

Records management systemCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. The Reno snippet’s report-writing software is not used as the LVMPD records system.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

An RMS stores case records. It is not itself a public camera. Analytics on top of it are a different card.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

A records management system is not documented by vendor or module. No constitutional theory is attached to an unnamed database.

Case law

No decision in this library decides a police records-management system.

What would have to be shown

The vendor, the modules, and any external query access.

Next record to request

Request the RMS contract and the external-access policy.

RMS vendor, modules, and access roles.

Risk scoring and hotspot analytics inside a records systemCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Not documented. Not the same file as a vendor brochure.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A map of many neighborhoods is broad. It is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourteenth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Risk scores and hotspot maps inside a records system are not documented. A Fourteenth Amendment question would need the inputs and a decision that used the score. No violation is claimed.

Case law

No decision in this library decides hotspot analytics. See the predictive-analytics card for the software category. Neither card documents a Nevada installation.

What would have to be shown

The module name, the inputs, and whether an officer is told to treat a score as suspicion.

Next record to request

Request analytic modules as a schedule to the RMS contract.

Risk-scoring and hotspot module contracts and use rules.

DMV and vehicle-registration linksCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Not documented. A plate detection is not a DMV file.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A registration lookup of one plate is targeted. Automatic lookup of every detection would be broad and is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

A link from a plate hit to a DMV record is not documented. Registration data is not treated as a conviction or as proof of who was driving.

Case law

No decision in this library decides a police query of a vehicle-registration database.

What would have to be shown

The query authority, the fields returned, and the audit.

Next record to request

Request the DMV query policy used by each agency that has a plate reader.

DMV query authority, fields, and audit policy.

Commercial people-search databasesCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. No vendor is assigned.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A subscription can be queried one name at a time and still contain many people. The Nevada subscription is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Commercial people-search databases are not documented as a Nevada subscription. No vendor is guessed.

Case law

No decision in this library decides a people-search subscription. No vendor is named because none was documented.

What would have to be shown

The vendor, the fields, and the agency subscription.

Next record to request

Request people-search subscriptions by invoice. Publish a vendor only from the invoice.

People-search invoices and acceptable-use policies.

GPS ankle monitors and parole or probation trackingCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Targeted correctional collection, distinguished from mass public surveillance. Nevada vendor not documented.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Targeted at a person under supervision. Not a public tracking network. Secondary sharing of the tracks is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Ankle monitors are regulated, targeted collection of a person the court has jurisdiction over. They are not mass surveillance of the public. No Nevada vendor, caseload, or alert rule is documented, so no violation is claimed.

Case law

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). United States Supreme Court. Jones decided a GPS box attached to a vehicle during a criminal investigation. An ankle monitor imposed by a court on a sentenced or released person is a different legal relationship. The analogy is not the holding.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). United States Supreme Court. Carpenter does not decide a court-ordered ankle monitor.

What would have to be shown

The court authority, the vendor, the retention after supervision ends, and who else can see the track.

Next record to request

Request the supervision-tracking policy from the corrections or court agency that actually runs it. Do not send that request to LVMPD unless a record shows LVMPD holds the feed.

Ankle-monitor vendor, retention after the term ends, and access list.

Correctional monitoringCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Institutional collection. Not a street-surveillance system. No facility policy was retrieved.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Targeted at a facility and the people held there. Not a public network.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Correctional monitoring is institutional and targeted at people in custody. It is not documented here by vendor or policy, and it is not described as mass public surveillance.

Case law

No decision in this library decides jail camera or telephone monitoring. This card does not apply public-camera cases to a jail.

What would have to be shown

The facility, the telephone-monitoring notice, the camera retention, and the legal process for a recording to leave the facility.

Next record to request

Request the detention facility’s monitoring policy from the jail operator. Do not invent a vendor.

Jail camera retention and inmate-call monitoring policy.

Public transit camerasCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. RTC-to-Fusion is not established.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Cameras on vehicles and platforms observe many riders. A police login to that archive is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Transit cameras are not documented as a police feed. The RTC row in the network table is not established. A transit camera is not decided by Ciraolo.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Naked-eye aerial observation of a yard was not a search on those facts. It does not decide a ground camera.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Helicopter observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented. It does not hold that every public image is lawful or unlawful.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo addressed thermal imaging of a home. It does not decide an ordinary public camera.

What would have to be shown

The transit agency’s camera policy and any police access agreement.

Next record to request

Request the transit camera policy. Keep it separate from the unproven Fusion Watch link.

Transit camera inventory, retention, and police-access agreements.

Transit fare account historiesCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Not established. No agency is assigned.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A fare history is one account. Bulk access would be a different request and is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Fare histories are listed where present. No Nevada fare-account system is documented, so no constitutional theory is attached.

Case law

No decision in this library decides a fare-card history. Carpenter is not applied to a transit account on this page.

What would have to be shown

The fare system, the retention of tap history, and the legal process police use to ask for it.

Next record to request

Confirm the fare vendor with the transit agency before a surveillance claim is written.

Fare-account retention and police-request policy.

School and campus cameras other than the reported CCSD plate-reader agreementCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Distinct from the Clark County School District Flock card. Campus video is not documented.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Building cameras observe students and visitors. Police access to that video is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

School cameras inside buildings are not the CCSD Flock agreement. That agreement is a plate-reader card. No classroom or campus camera contract is in this build, and no case is applied as if it were.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Naked-eye aerial observation of a yard was not a search on those facts. It does not decide a ground camera.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). United States Supreme Court. Helicopter observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented. It does not hold that every public image is lawful or unlawful.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). United States Supreme Court. Kyllo addressed thermal imaging of a home. It does not decide an ordinary public camera.

What would have to be shown

The camera policy, police access, and retention, for a named campus system.

Next record to request

Do not describe campus video from the Flock snippet. Request the camera policy separately.

Campus camera policy, police access, and retention.

Financial suspicious-activity reports and FinCEN requestsCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Targeted financial process, not documented as a Nevada volume. Distinguished from mass camera surveillance.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

Targeted at an account or a person when the form is used that way. Bulk access is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

FinCEN requests are targeted financial process when they name a person or an account. No Nevada request is documented. They are not mass public surveillance on the record this page has.

Case law

No decision in this library decides a FinCEN request. No financial statute is invented.

What would have to be shown

The requesting agency, the form, and the count. Account numbers do not belong on this page.

Next record to request

Request aggregate FinCEN query counts from a named investigative agency. Do not publish an account.

Aggregate FinCEN request counts and the policy for making one.

Prescription drug monitoring programCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Not documented. No Nevada statute is invented for this card.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A query about one patient is targeted. Bulk extraction is not documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

A prescription-monitoring query is targeted health-related process. No Nevada police access rule is documented. No statute is invented to fill that gap.

Case law

No decision in this library decides a PDMP query. No Nevada pharmacy statute is cited, because this page is not asserting one.

What would have to be shown

The statute the agency itself cites, the user role, and the audit of police queries.

Next record to request

Request the police-access policy and cite a statute only after the policy or the code section is read.

PDMP police-access policy and audit summary.

Medical records accessCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Not documented. No health-privacy citation is invented.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A warrant or patient request for one chart is targeted. It is not mass surveillance. No Nevada volume is documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

No constitutional provision is attached. The factual record is not sufficient.

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Medical-records access is subject to law this page has not applied to a documented Nevada practice. No hospital agreement is in this build. No violation is claimed.

Case law

No decision in this library decides police access to medical records. Federal health-privacy sections are not cited because no Nevada access was documented and this page will not invent the citation.

What would have to be shown

The legal process, the provider, and the policy that limits the request to the investigation.

Next record to request

Request the medical-records request policy. Do not cite a health-privacy section until the policy is in hand and the section is read.

Medical-records request policy for a named agency.

Satellite imagery used by public agenciesCapability or investigative question · No agency namedCapability or investigative question

Capability question. Drones are a different card.

Unresolved question

What is documented

Nevada use is not documented in this build.

None documented on this page.

Capability, collection, retention, sharing

Not established. A possible capability is not a confirmed Nevada practice.
Data: Not established.

Retention: Not established.

Sharing: Not established.

Vendor: Not established.. First seen: Not established. Last verified: Not established. Updated 2026-10-27.

A satellite frame can cover a wide area. No Nevada purchase is documented.

Applicable law

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.

Constitutional question

Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Satellite imagery purchases are not documented for a Nevada public agency. No case is applied as a holding about a picture this page has not identified.

Case law

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). United States Supreme Court. Ciraolo was an aircraft over one yard. It does not decide a satellite image purchased by an agency.

What would have to be shown

The vendor, the resolution, the agency, and the retention.

Next record to request

Ask agencies for commercial satellite contracts. Publish one only from the contract.

Satellite imagery contracts and retention.

What the government has not disclosed

City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety Flock portal metrics, retention, and sharing settings were not retrieved on 2026-10-27.
Who can query that portal, which outside agencies can search, which hotlists are loaded, what justification is kept, and how many alerts were false or tied to an arrest or a recovered missing person.
Whether exports and backups are deleted when a retention period ends. No retention period is established.
The Nevada DPS Fog contract, grant papers, and query logs. Dollars and the monthly query figure are the newspaper’s account. The contract was not reviewed. The January contract year is not stated on this page.
The post-publication DPS statement in the agency’s own document, rather than only as reported by the newspaper.
Whether LVMPD still has or uses the cell-site simulator reported as a 2013 acquisition. The cited document was not re-read.
Any agreement linking LVMPD Fusion Watch or a real-time crime center to RTC buses or other outside feeds.
Sharing agreements and system lists for the Nevada Threat Analysis Center and the Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center.
The LVMPD SafeCam registry: who participates, what is shared, and how long video is kept.
Exact agency, vendor, model, and dates for facial recognition, LVMPD drones, gunshot detection, and social-media monitoring. Policy titles on this site are not those records. The PDFs are not attached.
Which Nevada agency, if any, has a Vigilant Solutions contract. The AP snippet used here names none.

Leads requiring documentation

These are not findings. No agency response is recorded for them.

Officers used Flock to track romantic partners.

The February 25, 2026 Nevada Independent fact brief, in the search extract used here, reports a general expert warning that Flock has been used by police officers to track romantic partners. That is not a named LVMPD finding. No date, discipline record, or agency response is in this build.

Does Las Vegas have Flock license plate reader cameras?

A Ben Horowitz-linked foundation funded Las Vegas-area Flock cameras.

The February 22, 2026 Nevada Independent search extract reports that the Horowitz Family Foundation funded most Las Vegas-area cameras and did not comment. The full article, the contract, and the foundation records are not in this build. No agency response is recorded. This is not published as a finding.

Vegas police are big users of license plate readers

Public-records requests about these systems were denied or ignored.

No request is recorded on this page. A lead that requests were denied is not a fact until the request, the date, and the response are in hand.

Flock keeps City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety data for 365 days.

User research asserts 365 days. Verification required. The portal contents were not retrieved, and no current policy or contract is in this build.

Flock Safety transparency page named for the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety

A search count of more than 23,000 since late 2023.

The February 22, 2026 search extract attributes that count to Have I Been Flocked. That site was not audited. The count is not used as a metric.

Vegas police are big users of license plate readers

Public-records requests

No request is recorded. Nothing in the second table was sent.

Public-records requests about surveillance systems.
Agency	Date sent	Records sought	Status	Response	Documents
None recorded.	None	None	No request	None	None

Unfiled prompts

Example requests that have not been sent.
Status	Agency	Records
Not sent	City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety	Flock contract, current retention schedule, sharing settings, users, outside agencies, hotlist names, and query audit logs.
Not sent	Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department	Flock agreement, camera sites, retention, sharing list, and audit policy. Separate from the City of Las Vegas portal.
Not sent	Nevada Department of Public Safety	Fog contract, federal grant records, query policy, and the written statement DPS gave after the April 2026 article.

Court decisions, including contrary authority

Holdings are limited to the sentences on each card. A Supreme Court case binds on the question it decided. A district-court order does not bind the Ninth Circuit. Lambis and Andrews are persuasive only.

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018)

United States Supreme Court

Holding: The government generally needs a warrant to obtain historical cell-site location information in the circumstances the Court addressed.

Limit: The opinion does not decide automated license-plate readers or Fog broker data. It is not a holding about every kind of location record.

Read the opinion

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

United States Supreme Court

Holding: Attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to track the vehicle was a search.

Limit: The majority decided the attachment and use. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a single binding majority rule.

Read the opinion

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

United States Supreme Court

Holding: Tracking a beeper on public roads did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented.

Limit: Counterauthority for public-movement tracking. It is a beeper case, not a holding about a camera network, a plate reader, or a data broker.

Read the opinion

United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984)

United States Supreme Court

Holding: Electronic monitoring that reveals information inside a private residence implicated the Fourth Amendment.

Limit: A residence case. It does not decide public-road cameras or advertising-location data.

Read the opinion

United States v. Lambis, 197 F. Supp. 3d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

Persuasive only. Not binding in Nevada.

Holding: The district court suppressed evidence involving warrantless cell-site simulator use.

Limit: Persuasive only. Not binding in Nevada. No source link was supplied for this citation.

No source link was supplied for this citation.

State v. Andrews, 227 Md. App. 350 (2016)

Persuasive only. Not binding in Nevada.

Holding: The prompt identifies this as a Maryland appellate cell-site simulator decision. This page does not restate a holding beyond that description.

Limit: Persuasive only. Not binding in Nevada. No source link was supplied for this citation.

No source link was supplied for this citation.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)

United States Supreme Court

Holding: A warrant is generally required to search digital information on a cellphone seized incident to arrest.

Limit: The holding is about searching a phone the police already seized. It does not document a Nevada extraction program, and it does not decide plate readers or broker data.

Read the opinion

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)

United States Supreme Court

Holding: Using sense-enhancing thermal imaging to obtain information about the interior of a home was a search in the circumstances addressed.

Limit: A home case. It does not hold that a public camera image, a helicopter flight, or an ordinary aerial photograph is an unreasonable search.

Read the opinion

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)

United States Supreme Court

Holding: Aerial observation from a helicopter did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts presented.

Limit: Counterauthority for aerial observation, and a limit on it. It does not hold that every flight is lawful, and it does not decide recorded drone video.

Read the opinion

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)

United States Supreme Court

Holding: Naked-eye aerial observation of a fenced yard from public navigable airspace was not a search on those facts.

Limit: Counterauthority for aerial observation. It does not decide drones, zoom lenses, or recorded video networks.

Read the opinion

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)

United States Supreme Court

Holding: The state could not compel disclosure of the NAACP membership lists. The holding protects associational privacy.

Limit: It applies where a record shows compelled disclosure or monitoring of lawful association. It does not hold that reading a public post is unconstitutional.

Read the opinion

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)

United States Supreme Court

Holding: Using a pen register at the telephone company to record numbers dialed was not a search on those facts.

Limit: Counterauthority on the third-party facts of that case. Carpenter later declined to extend that reasoning to historical cell-site location information. Smith does not decide CSLI, plate readers, or advertising-location data.

Read the opinion

United States v. Spurlock, 778 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (D. Nev. 2025)

Federal district court. Not circuit precedent.

Holding: The district court treated a tower dump as a search, described warrant 20-SW-56 as a general warrant forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, found standing because phones associated with the defendant were in the dump, and denied suppression under the good-faith exception.

Limit: Order of April 11, 2025, by Judge Miranda M. Du, Case No. 3:23-cr-00022-MMD-CLB. This is a district-court order. It is not a Ninth Circuit holding, and it is not binding circuit precedent. The court wrote that it believed it was the first court in the Ninth Circuit to hold that a tower dump is a search. That sentence is the district court describing its own view. The dump is not attributed to LVMPD. Suppression was denied. A separate motion concerning 27 Red Rock Drive was also denied.

Read the opinion

Oversight demands

These are demands for rules and records. They are not a finding that an agency already broke a rule this page has not seen.

Warrants for invasive location tracking, stated in public policy for each system that collects it.
Retention limits written for the specific agency and system, not borrowed from another department’s portal.
Access logs that record who searched, the justification, and the result.
Independent audits of those logs, including misuse.
Penalties for misuse that are written down and applied on a public record.
Procurement files, gifts, and grant documents available without a special relationship to the vendor.
Public reporting of detections, hits, searches, false positives, arrests, and missing-person recoveries, with the counting rules disclosed.

Questions the record answers now

Is the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety the same agency as LVMPD?

No. The Flock transparency URL is attributed to the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety. LVMPD Flock reporting is a separate news extract. The numbers are not combined.

Are the Flock snapshot numbers a live feed?

No. Portal retrieval on October 27, 2026 was blocked. The two count pairs are undated user-provided snapshots. They were not independently reverified, and they are not a live feed.

Is a hotlist hit a confirmed crime?

No. A hotlist hit is not a confirmed crime, arrest, conviction, or successful investigation. A detection is not necessarily one vehicle or one person.

Do the percentages solve crimes?

No. Each percentage is an activity ratio, not a crime-solving rate. A small ratio does not prove that other drivers are innocent, and it does not prove that the scans are unlawful.

Does Carpenter v. United States decide ALPR or Fog data?

No. Carpenter held that the government generally needs a warrant for historical cell-site location information in the circumstances that case addressed. It does not decide an ALPR scan or Fog broker data.

Is United States v. Spurlock a Ninth Circuit holding?

No. It is a 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The court denied suppression under the good-faith exception. The dump is not attributed to LVMPD.

Sources, corrections, and changes

Source ledger for this page. Archive column is empty because no snapshot was saved.
Source	Date	Grade	Archive
Flock Safety transparency page named for the City of Las Vegas Department of Public SafetyFlock Safety	Not retrieved	url-identified-contents-not-retrieved	None
Nevada police may be tracking your phone’s location without a warrantThe Nevada Independent	2026-04-10	full-text-retrieved	None
Fog Data Science portal user manual, as cited by The Nevada IndependentDocumentCloud	2022	cited-by-news-not-reread	None
Document the Nevada Independent cites for a 2013 LVMPD cell-site simulator acquisitionDocumentCloud	2013	cited-by-news-not-reread	None
Vegas police are big users of license plate readersThe Nevada Independent	2026-02-22	search-extract-full-text-not-retrieved	None
Does Las Vegas have Flock license plate reader cameras?The Nevada Independent	2026-02-25	search-extract-full-text-not-retrieved	None
Nevada legislators request a bill adding guardrails on license plate reader useThe Nevada Independent	2026-08-27	search-extract-full-text-not-retrieved	None
Flock is out in Reno, but the city will still use license plate readersThe Nevada Independent	2026-10-22	search-extract-full-text-not-retrieved	None
Nevada license plate reader camerasAssociated Press	2026-03-23	search-extract-full-text-not-retrieved	None
United States v. Spurlock tower-dump orderDocumentCloud	2025-04-11	opinion-text-retrieved	None
United States v. Spurlock docketCourtListener	2025-04-11	full-text-retrieved	None

Change log

2026-10-27. First publication. The Flock portal was not retrieved. User snapshots are undated and not reverified. No public-records request is recorded. No screenshot is archived.

Corrections

A document workflow for this page is not built. The arrest correction form is not a surveillance-document inbox. Corrections and source documents for this page follow the corrections policy. Corrections policy.