Live video analytics · LVMPD INFO

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

Live video analytics software watches a camera feed and flags events, such as a person entering a zone, a vehicle stopping, or an object left behind. It can also try to follow a person or a vehicle from one camera to the next. The flag is a software judgment, not a conviction.

Privacy watchdog concerns

Electronic Frontier Foundation. Neighborhood Watch Out: Cops Are Using Fusus to Incorporate Private Cameras Into Their Real-Time Surveillance Networks. EFF says real-time crime center software can pull public cameras, private cameras, gunshot alerts, plate readers, and drones onto one screen after a resident or a business registers a camera. EFF says a live private feed can be opened without a warrant. This is EFF’s claim about that product type. It does not identify a Nevada purchase.

Constitutional issues

Unresolved question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Live video analytics: No Nevada video-analytic contract is documented. Ciraolo and Florida v. Riley do not decide software that links cameras. Kyllo does not decide an ordinary public camera. Carpenter does not decide this analytic.

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.

Capability only.

Next record

Live video analytics: Ask for analytic contracts separately from camera hardware.

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.