Proximity-based suspect lists
Reverse warrants
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 proximity list is the narrowed product of a geofence, a tower dump, or a broker area search: people whose devices were near a place at a time. Being on the list means the device was nearby. It does not mean the person committed the crime.
Privacy watchdog concerns
- Electronic Frontier Foundation. Real-Time Location Tracking. EFF says police use purchased location data either to follow one device or to list every device inside a drawn area. EFF describes that area search as the equivalent of a geofence warrant. This is EFF’s description. It is not proof a Nevada agency ran such a query.
Constitutional issues
Analogical constitutional argument
Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18
Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency
Proximity-based suspect lists: Presence on a proximity list is not guilt. No Nevada list is in this build. Spurlock is not a Ninth Circuit holding and is not this document.
- United States v. Spurlock, 778 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (D. Nev. 2025). Analogical constitutional argument. Federal district court. Not circuit precedent.. Spurlock discussed a dump that reached many people and called the warrant a general warrant. Suppression was denied. That order is not a Ninth Circuit holding, and it is not a holding about a proximity list from a broker.
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.
See also: Geofence warrants (Google reverse location); Tower dumps
Next record
Proximity-based suspect lists: Do not publish a proximity list as a suspect list.
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.