Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff’s military equipment policy renewed; drones added to inventory, board acknowledges report
Summary
The Board renewed the county ordinance and acknowledged the sheriff’s annual military equipment use report. The sheriff’s office reported adding Skydio X10 drones and removing older items including rifles and a MRAP vehicle; deputies have used drones on multiple missions.
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors on April 22 renewed a county ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy pursuant to Assembly Bill 481 and acknowledged the sheriff’s annual military equipment report for 2024.
Sheriff’s Captain Sean Scales told the board the most notable change in 2024 was the addition of drones to the sheriff’s equipment inventory. Scales said the department now has four Skydio X10 drones and four certified pilots and that the drones have been deployed on several missions. He also said the department removed rifles from the inventory, replaced older dispersal devices with 40-millimeter devices, and returned an MRAP after acquiring a Bearcat armored vehicle in June 2024.
Why it matters: The county’s military equipment ordinance — adopted under state law (AB 481) requiring local policies and annual reporting — governs acquisition and use of certain law enforcement equipment. The board’s renewal keeps the county in compliance with state reporting requirements and places the 2024 inventory update on record.
Details: Capt. Scales said the department plans to seek approval to buy smaller, expendable drones for interior/barricade uses (for example, DJI Avata-style small drones) that are better suited to indoor flights and lower-cost to replace. He described scenarios where small drones are preferable to deploying gas or sending staff into a structure, noting an example of a subject with medical needs where gas would not have been safe.
Public comment and questions: Supervisors generally praised the use of drones as a public- and officer-safety tool. One public commenter supported the sheriff’s drone program but urged consolidation of drone assets under the sheriff’s office rather than multiple county departments; the commenter suggested code compliance should rely on the sheriff’s drone program for oversight rather than running a separate program.
Vote: The board adopted the resolution and acknowledged the report by voice vote.
Ending: The sheriff’s office said it will post the annual report and the renewed policy on its website and indicated it will return to the board if it seeks to expand the drone fleet further.
