“nope. Hate Axion.”
In an archived August 2026 Nextdoor discussion, Rodney Muller told Redman, “and yes, I assume you are wearing Axion cameras.” Redman replied: “nope. Hate Axion.” The archive preserves the spelling used in the discussion; the surrounding exchange was plainly about Axon and body-worn cameras.
The Nextdoor transcript is a user-provided social-media archive, not an agency-produced public record. This report uses it only to document the public exchange and does not treat other commenters’ claims as verified.
What the County records establish
The September 28 CPRA production provides a separate, official record of the County’s Axon relationship. A July 2025 sole-source exemption identifies an estimated $436,598.51 over five years. The Board’s July 22, 2025 agenda listed the Sheriff’s five-year Axon agreement for continued use of TASER devices, and the fully executed package contains the quote, payment schedule, delivery schedule, governing terms, and DocuSign completion record.
$436,598.51 estimated five-year total
The Axon quote lists a 60-month program and an estimated total with tax of $436,598.51.
TASER-centered purchase, not an Axon body-camera purchase
The Amador quote and delivery schedule list TASER 10 equipment and related services. The production does not show a purchase of Axon body-worn cameras. Axon’s generic master terms discuss body cameras, but the Amador quote itself is TASER-focused.
County production Five-year Axon agreement and quote
See the quote summary and payment schedule near the beginning of the fully executed agreement package.
Open fully executed agreementWhat the five-year package includes
The quote describes 86 TASER 10 Certification Standard program bundles and a delivery schedule containing TASER 10 handles, live and training cartridges, batteries, docks, holsters, training equipment, warranties, instructor/certification services, Axon Evidence.com licensing, the Axon TASER Data Science Program, and Axon VR installation and equipment. That makes the relationship broader than a one-time purchase of conducted-energy weapons, even though it does not establish that the Sheriff uses Axon body-worn cameras.
County production Quote pricing and delivery schedule
The production includes both a fully executed agreement and a separate Axon agreement/quote packet.
Open Axon agreement packetNo evaluation of other equipment was reported
The County’s sole-source exemption form is especially notable. The form marks “No” in response to: “Was an evaluation of other equipment, products, or services performed?” The same document explains that Axon was being treated as the sole source for TASER products and says staff were already familiar with TASER products, training, and the Evidence.com data-management platform.
On that same page, the certification signed by the department representative states that the signer had made a “concentrated effort to review comparable/equal equipment and/or services.” The production does not explain what comparable equipment or services were reviewed, if any, or reconcile that certification language with the checked “No” answer.
What, if anything, was compared?
The records support two statements at once: the form reports that no evaluation of other equipment, products, or services was performed, while the certification says a concentrated effort was made to review comparable/equal equipment or services. A targeted follow-up request could ask for records showing what the certification referred to.
County production Sole-source exemption request
Page 2 contains the “No” selection for evaluation of other equipment and the certification language concerning comparable/equal equipment or services.
Open sole-source exemptionThe County previously used a competitive vendor comparison for TASER equipment
The production also reaches back to the prior five-year TASER 7 procurement in 2020. That Board packet says the County compared a direct Axon quote of $286,748.13 with a $274,131 ProForce Law Enforcement quote and recommended ProForce because it was less expensive. That was a comparison between vendors for TASER products, not an evaluation of a competing conducted-energy-weapon brand.
By 2025, Axon’s sole-source letter stated that Axon was the sole distributor and retailer of TASER-brand products in California. That provides context for why the County dealt directly with Axon in 2025, but it does not answer whether alternative equipment from other manufacturers was considered.
Historical County record 2020 ProForce / Axon TASER comparison
The January 2020 packet includes the County memorandum and competing Axon/ProForce TASER 7 quotes.
Open 2020 Board packetPayments already made under the current agreement
The invoice-and-claim packet documents two large payments associated with the current TASER 10 agreement: $56,757.80 for invoice INUS377690 in September 2025 and $94,960.18 for invoice INUS465189 in July 2026. Together, those two payments total $151,717.98.
The County-produced vendor transaction spreadsheet contains $162,864.25 in Axon transactions dated from March 2023 through August 18, 2026. That figure is broader than the two major contract payments: the invoice packet shows that some smaller Axon transactions relate to other County activity, including Probation purchases, so the archive does not characterize the entire vendor-list total as Sheriff spending.
County production Invoices, claims, and vendor transaction list
The claim packet documents the two large current-agreement invoices; the native XLSX provides the County’s vendor transaction rows.
Open invoices and claimsOpen vendor transaction list
A funding detail changed after the original Board memo
The July 14, 2025 Sheriff memorandum said the service payments would be divided between accounts 2210-52860 and 2310-52329. The September 2025 claim follows that split evenly. The July 2026 claim for $94,960.18, however, allocates the payment across those two accounts plus 2750-54194. The production does not explain the addition of the third account.
County production Sheriff memo and invoice claims
The memo identifies the planned two-account split; the later claim forms show the actual account allocations.
Open Sheriff memoThe central question the records do not answer
Redman’s public comment is clear about his personal view of Axon, while the procurement records are clear that his office recommended a substantial five-year Axon relationship for TASER equipment and associated services. The records do not explain what Redman dislikes about Axon, whether those concerns relate specifically to Axon body cameras, or whether those concerns were considered during the 2025 sole-source recommendation.
Records-based follow-up points
- What specific concerns about Axon led the Sheriff to say he “hates” the company?
- Were any concerns about Axon documented or discussed before the Sheriff’s Office recommended the five-year sole-source agreement?
- What “comparable/equal equipment and/or services,” if any, were reviewed before the sole-source certification was signed?
- Why does the form report that no evaluation of other equipment/products/services was performed while the certification references an effort to review comparable/equal options?
- Why was account 2750-54194 added to the July 2026 Axon payment allocation?
- What was purchased under ProForce PO 26036, for which the Board approved a $66,016.27 budget increase in March 2026? The record included in this production identifies the vendor and funding source but not the items purchased.
Contract term to watch
Axon’s Master Services and Purchasing Agreement states that subscriptions automatically renew for an additional five-year term after the subscription term ends. For standalone TASER 7 or TASER 10 purchases, the agreement says Axon may increase renewal pricing to then-current list pricing. The production does not establish whether the County intends to permit or prevent that renewal.
Contract term Automatic renewal
See Section 2.2 of the Master Services and Purchasing Agreement.
Open master agreement termsMethod and source limits
This report distinguishes the social-media statement from the official County records. The Nextdoor quotation comes from an archive-created transcript based on user-provided export material. Contract value, procurement method, payment information, and product descriptions come from the County’s September 28, 2026 CPRA production. The report does not infer Redman’s reasons for disliking Axon and does not characterize the absence of a competing-product evaluation as unlawful.