Twin Falls County Sheriff | The Sheriff's in-car cameras
Thirty-eight Axon in-car cameras and a five year bundled package, $619,528, paid for entirely by a federal grant with no county match. The Board of County Commissioners found Axon a sole source vendor because four other agencies in the county already used its evidence system.
At a glance
- How many cameras
- 38 [2]
- Price
- $619,528.00 for the cameras and a five year bundled package, procured in year one [2]
- Who paid
- A federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, year one of three, with no match requirement. The Sheriff's Office told the Board everything should be fully funded by the grant [2]
- How it was bought
- Sole source. Resolution 2024-030 found Axon the only vendor able to supply compatible equipment, under Idaho Code section 67-2808(2) [1]
- Why sole source
- Compatibility. The resolution records that the county Prosecutor's Office and the Office of the Public Defender use Axon's Evidence.com, and that the Twin Falls, Filer, Buhl and Kimberly police departments all use Axon and Evidence.com [1]
- In service
- Yes, by June 2025 [4]
- Do they read plates
- Nothing in the county record says either way. The product line is sold with an optional plate reading capability
- A written policy
- None is published. The Sheriff's Office website runs to eleven pages and carries no policies
How it happened
- Decision
Axon declared a sole source vendor
The Board passes Resolution 2024-030 unanimously, finding Axon Enterprise LLC the sole source vendor for the purchase of the in-car camera Fleet 3 under Idaho Code section 67-2808(2). The resolution's stated ground is that competitive bidding is impracticable because compatibility is required: the county's prosecutors and public defenders run Axon's Evidence.com, and so do four police departments in the county. The county is to contract on or after 17 June 2024. [1]
- Decision
The grant, and the number
The Board approves a Byrne JAG Car Camera Grant Award, year one of three. The minutes record that all 38 in-car cameras and the associated five year bundled package will be procured in year one for $619,528.00, and that there is no grant match requirement. A commissioner notes the cost is high but that this is a great tool for the Sheriff's Office to have. Passed unanimously. An earlier meeting that month took no action on the same item pending legal review. [2]
- Decision
Tabled for legal review, then approved
The Board tables the Axon quote and purchasing agreement for further legal clarification, the minutes noting the county is still within its deadline to purchase the cameras. At a later September meeting the Board approves it. The minutes describe a five year contract with a grant funding the first three years, and record that the items of concern legal had raised were addressed in a revised agreement. Passed unanimously, one commissioner absent. [3]
- Deployment
Year two, and the cameras are in service
The Board approves the year two award. The minutes record that the car cameras have been purchased and put in service, the Sheriff thanking the Board for its support of the in-car camera program, and further discussion of the cameras' longevity and the associated replacement costs. Passed unanimously. [4]
- Decision
A master services and purchasing agreement, contents not stated
The Board approves a Master Services and Purchasing Agreement with Axon, reviewed for the Board by the Prosecuting Attorney, passed unanimously with one commissioner absent. The minutes name no equipment, no term and no dollar figure, and the agreement is not published. [5]
The county’s own surveillance spending is smaller than the city’s in ambition and larger in one number.
The purchase
In August 2024 the Board of County Commissioners accepted a federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant to buy in-car cameras for the Sheriff’s Office. The minutes are specific in a way county minutes usually are not: all 38 cameras and the associated five year bundled package would be procured in year one for $619,528.00, with no match required from the county. Staff told the Board everything should be fully funded by the grant.
The grant runs three years. The contract runs five. The Board noticed, approved it anyway, and came back to the question of replacement costs in June 2025 without resolving it.
Why it never went out to bid
Three months before the grant, on 30 May 2024, the Board passed Resolution 2024-030 declaring Axon a sole source vendor. Idaho Code section 67-2808(2) allows that finding where only one vendor is reasonably available and competitive bidding would be impracticable.
The ground the resolution gives is compatibility, and the resolution names who with: the county Prosecutor’s Office and the Office of the Public Defender already use Axon’s Evidence.com, and the police departments of Twin Falls, Filer, Buhl and Kimberly all use Axon and Evidence.com.
That is a candid piece of drafting, and it describes a real thing. Once the prosecutors, the public defenders and four police departments in a county are on one company’s evidence platform, the fifth agency’s procurement decision has largely been made by the other five. The resolution does not hide this. It is the argument.
Whether a market in which the second purchase is foreclosed by the first is a market at all is a question for someone other than a county board at 8:00 on a Thursday morning. But it is worth naming that the county did not choose Axon in 2024 so much as ratify a choice its neighbors had already made.
What is not known
The purchasing agreement that followed the resolution is not published, so what the five year bundle contains is unknown: storage, transcription, analysis, or none of those. Whether the cameras read license plates is unknown, and the county has published no policy governing them at all.
In August 2026 the Board approved a Master Services and Purchasing Agreement with the same vendor. The minutes record that the Prosecuting Attorney reviewed it and that the motion passed. They name no equipment, no term and no price.
What we do not know
- What is in the five year bundle? The grant award names a figure for cameras and a bundled package. The purchasing agreement itself is not published.
- Do the cameras read license plates? The county record does not say, and the county has no published policy on them.
- What does the August 2026 master services and purchasing agreement cover? The minutes record the approval and nothing else.
- What happens in year four? The grant pays for three years of a five year contract, and the minutes record the Board discussing replacement costs without settling them.
What you can do
Show up
Systems like this one are approved by boards, councils and committees that meet in public. We have confirmed where each of them meets in Twin Falls County and how public comment works there.
How to show up in Twin Falls County →Protect yourself
Practical steps to shrink your personal data trail. Our guides publish at launch; until then, EFF's Surveillance Self-Defense is the best starting point.
Surveillance Self-Defense →Sources
- 1. Twin Falls County Board of County Commissioners minutes, May 2024, carrying Resolution 2024-030 · Meeting record · · accessed
- 2. Twin Falls County Board of County Commissioners minutes, August 2024 · Meeting record · accessed
- 3. Twin Falls County Board of County Commissioners minutes, September 2024 · Meeting record · accessed
- 4. Twin Falls County Board of County Commissioners minutes, June 2025 · Meeting record · accessed
- 5. Twin Falls County Board of County Commissioners minutes, 10 to 14 August 2026 · Meeting record · accessed
Get the digest
A regular digest of what changed in the world of surveillance: the counties we published, the devices that appeared on the map, and the public meetings where these decisions get made. We send it when there is enough to report.
One click to unsubscribe. What we do with your address is on the newsletter page.