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 ↗

Dash cameras

Cameras

Last reviewed: 2026-10-27Legal review: unverifiedCapability or investigative question
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 dash camera records the view through a patrol car’s windshield, and sometimes the back seat. It runs with the car. It is not a body-worn camera and not a plate reader, though a car can carry more than one of those devices.

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

Dash cameras: No dash-camera program is documented. The Reno snippet lists body cameras and does not separately state dash cameras. No case in this library decides a dash camera.

  • 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

Not documented on this page. The City of Reno snippet does not separately state dash cameras.

The Reno snippet does not establish dash cameras.

See also: Body-worn cameras

Next record

Dash cameras: Do not copy the Reno body-camera line onto dash cameras.

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.