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 ↗

Tower dumps

Cell site and carrier

Last reviewed: 2026-10-27Legal review: unverifiedDocumented elsewhere / Nevada use unverified
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 tower dump asks a phone company for the list of phones that used a tower or a set of towers during a window of time. The return can include many people who were simply nearby. It is a carrier record, not a simulator the police drive through the area.

Privacy watchdog concerns

No watchdog page is attached.

Constitutional issues

Established legal holding

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

A decision discusses legal process for this kind of technique. No Nevada agency practice is documented here.

Tower dumps: The established holding in this library is a district-court order, not a Ninth Circuit holding. The court found a Fourth Amendment problem with warrant 20-SW-56 and still denied suppression under the good-faith exception. That order does not document an LVMPD tower dump.

  • United States v. Spurlock, 778 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (D. Nev. 2025). Established holding for this kind of technique. Federal district court. Not circuit precedent.. District court only. The warrant was described as a general warrant. Suppression was denied on the good-faith exception. This is not a Ninth Circuit holding.
  • Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). Analogical constitutional argument. United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed one person’s historical cell-site location information. A dump of every phone on a tower is a different request. Spurlock is the order in this library that decided a dump, and it is not a Ninth Circuit holding.

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 as a Nevada agency practice. The dump in the court record is not attributed to LVMPD.

Documented elsewhere: California police, reviewed by a Nevada federal judge. Nevada use by LVMPD or Nevada DPS is not established.

  • Sharing: The litigation record used here does not establish a Nevada-agency sharing agreement.

See also: Carrier-assisted location; Geofence warrants (Google reverse location)

Next record

Tower dumps: Read the order as the court record. Ask Nevada agencies separately whether they use tower dumps.

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.