Washoe County Sheriff | The ten-year Axon contract
A hundred and twenty months, up to $32,243,367.44, covering body-worn and in-car cameras with live streaming for the Sheriff and putting the District Attorney and both Public Defenders on the same vendor's evidence platform.
At a glance
- What was put to the Board
- A First Amendment to a Master Services and Purchasing Agreement dated 20 January 2022, consolidating and extending Axon contracts for a 10-year, 120-month term, on 19 November 2024 [1]
- Total
- not to exceed $32,243,367.44 over the full 120 months [1]
- Annual profile
- $2,219,127.44 in year one, then between $3,275,675 and $3,652,025 a year for years two to ten [1]
- Which offices it covers
- Washoe County Sheriff's Office, Public Defender, Alternate Public Defender and District Attorney [1]
- What it buys
- "body worn cameras and fleet in-car cameras with live streaming capabilities, virtual reality training, less lethal (TASERs), unlimited storage, Justice Premier, and other software support services" [1]
- Who may watch a live stream, and when
- not stated in the item, and no policy document in the county record answers it [2]
- How it was procured
- The attachment is labelled a Joinder contract, meaning the county bought onto another agency's existing competitively-bid agreement rather than running its own procurement [1]
- Whose contract was joined
- not identified in the agenda item; the underlying agreement is not in the record [1]
- Whether the Board approved it
- not established. Every document in this county's corpus is an agenda; no minutes were published through the county's Legistar system, so outcomes are not visible [2]
How it happened
- Context
The underlying agreement
A Master Services and Purchasing Agreement between Axon Enterprise and the Washoe County Sheriff's Office, referenced by date in the 2024 amendment. The agreement itself is not in the county's published record. [1]
- Decision
Consolidated, extended to ten years, put to the Board
The Board of County Commissioners was asked to approve a First Amendment consolidating Axon contracts across four county offices and extending them for 120 months at a cost not to exceed $32,243,367.44, together with authority to draw up to $2,073,641 of General Fund Contingency in fiscal year 2025. [1]
The number is not the point
$32,243,367.44 over a hundred and twenty months is the largest surveillance contract this project has found in any state. It is roughly sixteen times the body camera contract Nye County awarded, on twice the term.
But three things in the item matter more than the total.
“Live streaming capabilities”
The contract covers “body worn cameras and fleet in-car cameras with live streaming capabilities”.
A recording camera produces a file. Someone can ask for it afterwards, there is a retention period, a records process, a fee. A streaming camera produces a view: what the officer is seeing, while it happens, available to someone who is not there.
Those are different powers and they need different rules. The agenda item does not say who may open a live stream, under what circumstances, whether an officer knows when they are being watched, or whether any of it is logged. No document in the county’s published record answers any of that.
Ten years
A hundred and twenty months runs past the term of the sheriff who signed it and most of the commissioners who were asked to approve it. Whatever policy governs these cameras in 2034 will be inherited rather than chosen, and renegotiating in the meantime means reopening a consolidated agreement covering four county offices at once.
Everyone on one platform
The contract does not just cover the Sheriff. It consolidates Axon agreements for the Public Defender, the Alternate Public Defender and the District Attorney.
Read that both ways, because both are true.
It is genuinely useful for defence lawyers to have working access to the evidence platform their clients’ cases turn on, instead of waiting on discs and discovery requests. Public defenders are usually the last to see footage and the least resourced to handle it.
And it means one company holds the evidence infrastructure of an entire county justice system, on a ten-year term, with the office that collects the evidence, the office that prosecutes on it and the offices that defend against it all inside the same product. There is no suggestion of impropriety in that, and it is still a concentration worth noticing.
Bought onto somebody else’s contract
The attachment is labelled a Joinder contract. A joinder lets a government buy on the terms of another government’s already-competitively-bid agreement, rather than running its own procurement.
It is legal, common and efficient. It also means the price and terms were tested somewhere else, by someone else, possibly years earlier, and Washoe County’s own competitive process for a thirty-two-million-dollar purchase consisted of deciding to join.
The agenda item does not say whose contract was joined. That underlying agreement is the first records request on this county.
What this page cannot tell you
Whether the Board approved it.
Every document in Washoe County’s corpus is an agenda. Its Legistar system published no minutes we could find, so this site can show what the county was asked to do and not what it did. That applies to everything on this page, and it is why every claim here says “was asked to”.
What we do not know
- Who may view a live body-camera or in-car stream, from where, and in what circumstances. The contract buys the capability; nothing published says how it is governed.
- Whose competitively-bid contract the county joined, and what terms it carries.
- Whether the Board approved the item as presented, which this corpus cannot show.
- What the Sheriff's Office body camera policy contains, and whether it has the six elements NRS 289.830 requires.
- What happens to ten years of footage held under an "unlimited storage" clause, and who decides when it is deleted.
What you can do
Show up
Systems like this one are approved by boards, councils and committees that meet in public. We have not yet confirmed where each of them meets in Washoe County.
What we have documented in Washoe 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.
- 2.
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.