Police Department
www.santa-ana.org/pd
Item # 8
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
February 3, 2026
TOPIC: In-Car Cameras at the Santa Ana Police Department
AGENDA TITLE
In-Car Cameras at the Santa Ana Police Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive and file information presented in this report regarding the feasibility of deploying in-car camera systems at the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD).
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No
DISCUSSION
At the October 10, 2025 City Council meeting, the Council discussed the potential use of in-car (dash-mounted) cameras in police vehicles and directed the Chief of Police to research the feasibility of implementing such a system within SAPD.
Police in-car camera systems have existed since the 1960s, initially focused on driving under the influence (DUI) and traffic enforcement. Their widespread adoption accelerated during the late 1980s and 1990s due to public accountability concerns, and expanded further through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) federal funding in the early 2000s. SAPD previously explored deploying in-car cameras during this time; however, costs and logistical challenges prevented implementation.
Nationwide surveys regarding the percentage of police departments using in-car cameras are dated. Still, as of 2016, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, approximately 69% of police agencies nationwide were using in-car cameras. This number is now likely higher. More recent surveys suggest that over 80% of police departments deploy body-worn cameras (BWCs).
In 2017, following extensive research and field testing, SAPD began using Axon- branded BWCs. Officers and detectives are required to activate their cameras during most public contacts and all enforcement activities. The annual cost of the BWC
In-Car Cameras at the Santa Ana Police Department
February 3, 2026
5 5
3 0
program (including equipment, maintenance, and digital storage) is approximately $1 million.
In-Car Camera Capabilities:
Modern in-car video systems offer robust capabilities far exceeding early-generation equipment. Industry leaders include Axon, Motorola, and Kustom Signals. Their current systems provide high-resolution video, automated activation, and full integration with cloud-based digital evidence platforms.
Axon - Fleet 3 (recommended Platform)
Axon’s Fleet 3 system is widely used by large agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department. Key features include:
Dual-view forward-facing camera (field-of-view and panoramic) with sound recording;
Interior rear-facing camera covering the prisoner compartment with sound recording;
Optional side cameras are available at an additional cost; Pre-event buffering;
Optional automated license plate reader (ALPR);
Axon Signal technology;
Secure transfer and storage of footage through Evidence.com via cellular or Wi-Fi.
Fleet 3 integrates seamlessly with Axon BWCs; an important consideration given SAPD’s current Axon ecosystem.
Motorola – M500
Motorola’s M500 system includes:
Front and rear exterior cameras;
Optional interior camera;
Optional 360-degree situational coverage;
Compatibility with Motorola BWCs;
Cloud storage through Motorola VideoManager EL and CommandCentral DEMS.
Kustom Signals – Argus ICV
Kustom Signals’ Argus ICV system offers features similar to Axon and Motorola; Compatible with its proprietary Argus BWC platform;
Cloud storage through Argus Data Vault.
In-Car Cameras at the Santa Ana Police Department
February 3, 2026
5 5
3 0
Local Agency Comparison:
Several Orange County law enforcement agencies currently operate in-car camera systems:
Orange County Sheriff’s Department – First OC agency to deploy in-car cameras (early 1990s); adopted Axon BWCs in 2022; uses Axon for both platforms. Anaheim Police Department – Implemented in-car cameras in the late 1980s; adopted BWCs in 2014; uses Axon for both platforms.
Costa Mesa Police Department – Implemented in-car cameras in 1998; BWCs added in 2020; transitioned from Motorola/WatchGuard to Axon for both systems in 2024.
These agencies’ system selections emphasize the operational value of unified in-car and BWC platforms.
Cost Analysis:
SAPD currently spends approximately $1 million annually on the BWC program (equipment, maintenance, and digital storage). Staff hours are not included in this number.
The estimated on-going cost to add an in-car camera system is:
ALPR Term Total Annual Per Vehicle /
Year
Excluded 5 Years $1,221,295 $244,259 $2,571
Included 5 Years $1,395,920 $279,184 $2,939
The estimates are based on:
Approximately 95 marked patrol vehicles;
Equipment, installation, maintenance, and data storage; Compatibility with existing in-car routers.
Additional costs may be incurred for vehicles lacking the necessary routers or cellular service. There may also be unidentified or variable costs that are not included in the total amounts above. These include:
Personnel time for processing, reviewing, and redacting in-car video associated with evidentiary needs and Public Records Act (PRA/FOIA) requests; Potential staffing or overtime needs for digital evidence management.
Implementation:
Due to its compatibility with SAPD’s current Axon BWC environment, Axon Fleet 3 is the most suitable platform for potential deployment.
In-Car Cameras at the Santa Ana Police Department
February 3, 2026
5 5
3 0
Recommended Next Steps
Prior to implementation, SAPD should conduct a thorough field test of the Axon Fleet 3 system to validate equipment compatibility concerns and identify operational considerations. After testing, the following steps are recommended:
1. Identify funding to cover the cost of adding in-car cameras to the SAPD fleet.
2. Negotiate or amend the existing Axon contract to include Fleet 3 in-car camera systems.
3. Update the existing BWC policy to include in-car camera usage, or develop a standalone in-car camera policy.
4. Coordinate phased installation across the fleet to minimize operational disruptions.
5. Provide training to officers on system functionality, policy requirements, and synchronization between BWCs and in-car systems.
6. Deploy the systems department-wide upon completion of installation and training.
Pros and cons of in-car cameras:
Pros:
1. Enhanced Transparency and Accountability
In-car cameras provide an additional, fixed perspective during vehicle stops, pursuits, prisoner transports, critical incidents, and officer-involved collisions.
This strengthens public trust and supports SAPD’s commitment to transparency.
2. Improved Evidence Collection
High-quality video and audio captured inside and outside the patrol vehicle can strengthen criminal cases involving DUI enforcement, traffic violations, use-of- force incidents, and suspect statements.
3. Complement to Body-Worn Cameras
In-car cameras capture angles and interactions that BWCs may miss due to movement, obstruction, or officer positioning. When combined, the two systems may create a more complete evidentiary record.
4. Officer Safety and Training Value
Footage from vehicle interiors and fronts can be used for after-action review, training, coaching, and analysis of pursuit tactics, high-risk stops, and officer- safety decisions.
5. Alignment with Regional and National Standards
Many Orange County agencies and a majority of departments nationwide deploy in-car systems.
Cons:
1. Significant Ongoing Financial Cost
In addition to annual BWC expenses, in-car cameras would add approximately $244,259–$279,194 in recurring annual costs for equipment, storage, and maintenance.
In-Car Cameras at the Santa Ana Police Department
February 3, 2026
5 5
3 0
2. Increased Data Management Burden
Additional video will significantly increase the volume of evidence requiring review, storage, redaction, and release for discovery and Public Records Act requests. This will require additional staffing and overtime.
3. Installation and Integration Logistics
Fleet-wide installation requires vehicle downtime and coordination. Older vehicles may require additional hardware or retrofitting to support the system.
4. Digital Infrastructure Demands
Increased video uploads may stress existing cellular routers, Wi-Fi hotspots, and digital evidence storage systems. Some vehicles may require upgraded connectivity hardware and additional connectivity subscriptions.
5. Privacy Considerations
Recording the interiors of vehicles, including prisoner compartments, may raise privacy concerns for detainees, witnesses, or members of the public. Policies must clearly define when and how in-car cameras are used.
6. Potential for Misinterpretation of Footage
Like BWCs, in-car cameras provide a fixed, limited perspective that may not capture everything officers see or experience. Footage may be misinterpreted without full situational context.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
Submitted By: Robert Rodriguez, Police Chief
Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager