Pacific County Sheriff | Body cameras, bought twice on a single-source exemption
Pacific County equips its deputies from one company and says so on the record each time. Twice it has adopted a resolution reciting the state law that exempts single-source purchases from competitive bidding, and then bought from Axon.
At a glance
- The 2023 purchase
- Resolution No. 2023-067, adopted 10 October 2023: "$357,513.19 for 15 Taser-7 units for the corrections division" plus 18 OSP7+ body camera units for the patrol division [1] [2]
- The 2025 purchase
- Resolution No. 2025-036, adopted 24 June 2025: "$10,196.60 for two (2) OSP7+ body camera units for the patrol division" [3]
- How the bidding was handled
- Both times by a resolution reciting RCW 39.04.280, which "provides for an exemption from bidding requirements and authorizes purchases that are clearly and legitimately limited to a single source of supply" [2] [3]
- Why Axon is the single source
- The resolutions state it: Axon is the single source provider for these units "plus corresponding software, hardware, and training supplies containing unique features" [2] [3]
- Retention, access or a written camera policy
- none found in the readable board record. RCW 10.109 requires a policy and RCW 42.56.240(14) sets a 60-day retention floor; neither is discussed in these documents [4]
- What the record does not reach
- 229 of the 587 documents in the 2023-onward window carry no text layer. This county prints the substance of its decisions inside its proceedings, so an unreadable proceedings file hides a whole meeting [4]
How it happened
- Procurement
Eighteen body cameras and fifteen tasers, single source
The Board of Commissioners considers Resolution No. 2023-067 authorising the purchase of tasers and body cameras from Axon Enterprise as a single source of supply, $357,513.19 in total: 15 Taser-7 units for the corrections division from the jail fund, and 18 OSP7+ units for the patrol division from the law enforcement fund. The resolution text, printed in the proceedings, recites RCW 39.04.280 and finds that the purchase is limited to a single source. [1] [2]
- Decision
The resolution is adopted
The proceedings of 24 October 2023 record the adoption of Resolution No. 2023-067 in the same terms, with both funds and both unit counts named. [2]
- Expansion
Two more cameras, the same instrument
Resolution No. 2025-036 is adopted by a vote of 3-0, authorising the purchase of two OSP7+ body camera units for the patrol division at $10,196.60, again from Axon as a single source of supply and again by a resolution reciting the statute. [3]
A county that does the paperwork in public
Most of the counties in this project reach a sole-source purchase by consent item, or by a competitive-bidding waiver buried in an information services block. Pacific County adopts a resolution, recites the statute in it, and prints the whole thing in its proceedings where anyone can read it.
Twice. In October 2023, for
“purchase of tasers and body cameras from Axon Enterprise, Inc. ‘Single Source of Supply’ provider in the total amount of $357,513.19 for 15 Taser-7 units for the corrections division”
and 18 body camera units for patrol. Then in June 2025, for
“two (2) OSP7+ body camera units for the patrol division”
at $10,196.60.
For a county of about 23,000 people, that first purchase is the patrol division equipped and the jail retooled in one motion.
The sentence that does the work
Both resolutions turn on the same finding. State law, they recite, “provides for an exemption from bidding requirements and authorizes purchases that are clearly and legitimately limited to a single source of supply”. And Axon is that single source for these units “plus corresponding software, hardware, and training supplies containing unique features.”
Read that last clause slowly, because it is the vendor’s logic rather than the county’s. The features are unique because one company makes them. Once an agency is on a platform, the software, the holsters, the docks and the training are all specified by the company that sold the first camera, and the exemption follows from the choice rather than preceding it.
Nothing improper happened here. RCW 39.04.280 exists precisely for purchases like this one, the county applied it as written, and it published its reasoning both times. What is worth noticing is how ordinary the mechanism is: this is the fourth county in a single week of this project’s research to arrive at Axon without a competitive process, each by a different route.
What we could not read
Two hundred and twenty-nine of the 587 documents Pacific County published in this window have no text layer in them. Because this county prints the substance of its decisions inside the proceedings rather than attaching them, each unreadable file is a whole meeting rather than a single document.
In the 355 we could read there is no plate reader, no facial recognition and no camera registry. That covers 60% of the record, and it should be read as 60% of an answer.
What we do not know
- Whether the Sheriff's Office has the body camera policy RCW 10.109 requires, and what it says about retention, redaction and release.
- What the county charges a resident for body camera footage, and how long a request takes.
- What is in the 229 documents in this window that carry no text layer.
- Whether the 2019 waterproof Splash drone is still in service and whether the larger warrant-service aircraft the Sheriff discussed was ever bought.
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 Pacific County.
What we have documented in Pacific 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. Pacific County Board of Commissioners agenda, 10 October 2023, item 9 · Meeting record · · accessed
- 2. Pacific County Board of Commissioners proceedings, 10 and 24 October 2023, carrying the text of Resolution No. 2023-067 · Meeting record · · accessed
- 3. Pacific County Board of Commissioners proceedings, 24 June 2025, carrying the text of Resolution No. 2025-036 · Meeting record · · accessed
- 4.
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.