Independent public-information projectNot the official LVMPD website. Taxpayer-funded, not affiliated with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Official services at lvmpd.comNot the official LVMPD site · lvmpd.comEmergency 911 · Non-emergency 311
LVMPD INFOLVMPD Public Information
Official LVMPD site ↗

Body-worn cameras

Cameras

Last reviewed: 2026-10-27Legal review: unverifiedDocumented Nevada deployment
Evidence rule

This page is public-interest research. An argument grade is not a court finding. A watchdog page describes the device. It is not proof a Nevada agency bought it or turned a feature on. A product description is not a Nevada practice. Agencies are not merged: the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Clark County School District, the City of Reno, and the Nevada Department of Public Safety stay separate. A hotlist hit is not a confirmed crime. Legal review of this page is unverified.

What it does

A body-worn camera records video and audio from an officer’s chest or glasses during an encounter. It is aimed at the people the officer is with. It is not a street camera that runs all day on a pole. Whether it records continuously or only when switched on is a policy question.

Privacy watchdog concerns

No watchdog page is attached.

Constitutional issues

Unresolved question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

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

  • California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). Counterauthority. 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). Counterauthority. 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). Does not decide this technology. United States Supreme Court. Kyllo addressed thermal imaging of a home. It does not decide an ordinary public camera.

Statutes attached to read, not findings.

  • 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.

Nevada use

City of Reno only, as a line in the October 22, 2026 Axon snippet. The staff report was not fetched. LVMPD body-worn cameras are not documented on this page.

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

See also: Dash cameras; Fixed LPR cameras; Drones

Next record

Body-worn cameras: Read the Reno staff report. Do not copy this card onto LVMPD.

Sources

All devices. 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.