Call-detail record analysis
Cell site and carrier
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 call-detail record is the phone company’s log of a number: whom it called, when, and how long, and sometimes which tower carried the call. Analysis maps those rows into a contact list or a rough location trail. The record is about the account. It is not the content of the conversation.
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
Call-detail record analysis: No Nevada call-detail program is documented. The Stored Communications Act is the provider-records statute to read. Smith is counterauthority on its own facts. Carpenter does not decide every call-detail request.
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Counterauthority. United States Supreme Court. Smith addressed numbers dialed through 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). Does not decide this technology. United States Supreme Court. Carpenter declined to extend Smith to historical cell-site location information. It did not decide every call-detail query.
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.
- 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.
Nevada use
Not documented on this page.
Statute identified. Nevada use is not documented.
See also: Carrier-assisted location; Tower dumps; Pen registers and trap-and-trace devices
Next record
Call-detail record analysis: Request the policy. Do not treat the Fog contract as a call-detail order.
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.