Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ulster County committee approves Axon discovery and body‑camera modules amid monopoly concerns
Summary
The committee approved a multi‑year discovery system from Axon that will be used by the Public Defender and District Attorney offices; supporters cited efficiency and synchronized body‑cam review, while one legislator voiced concerns about Axon's market dominance but voted to approve the contracts.
Ulster County’s Law Enforcement and Public Safety Committee on Dec. 3 approved contracts to purchase an Axon discovery and body‑camera coordination system for both the Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office.
The Public Defender’s component (Resolution 591) was presented as a five‑year, $216,688.80 implementation paid for with state grant funds for the Public Defender’s Office. The vendor’s system was described as able to coordinate up to four body‑worn cameras simultaneously and to provide AI‑supported search of video and transcripts, which the public defender said should significantly reduce attorney review time.
The District Attorney’s component (Resolution 592) was presented as a county‑funded contract of $460,742.40. The District Attorney said his office evaluated multiple vendors, including NICE, and concluded Axon provided the best value for the county’s needs.
During discussion, an unidentified legislator who identified themselves as frequently voting against Axon contracts criticized what they described as a market concentration between body‑camera and Taser technologies and raised concerns about monopolistic market power; they cited market cap figures they said influenced their view but ultimately said they would support this purchase because they back body cameras. Sheriff Figueroa and the District Attorney both spoke in favor of the technology, citing transparency, ease of review and public benefit.
Both resolutions were adopted by voice vote at the committee meeting.
What the contracts cover and funding: the public defender’s portion is covered by state grant money, while the DA’s portion is county‑funded. Committee members asked for and received that clarification before the vote.
