DeSoto police present Year‑2 ShotSpotter data as contract nears renewal
May 20, 2025 | DeSoto, Dallas County, Texas
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Assistant Chief Ryan Jesnick of the DeSoto Police Department updated the City Council on May 20 on the two‑year ShotSpotter gunfire detection pilot and said the department will return with more options and pricing ahead of a contract renewal decision.
Jesnick told the council the service began April 20, 2023, covers roughly 2 square miles (about 10% of the city) and provides suspected outdoor gunfire alerts with an approximate location within 25 meters (about 82 feet) to dispatch and patrol within about 60 seconds. He said the pilot has been funded with American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and would need to come from the police budget if continued.
Why it matters: Jesnick framed the briefing as timely because the three‑year contract entered its third year in April 2025 and any renewal would need to be budgeted for FY2026. Council members pressed for evidence the system improves public safety and for comparisons with alternatives and costs before committing general fund dollars.
Jesnick presented the program’s operational data for the first two years: the department received a large number of vetted ShotSpotter notifications over the two‑year period, which translated into a smaller number of distinct gunfire incidents (27 incidents in year one, 20 in year two). He said investigators combine multiple notifications into single incidents when the technology registers pauses and repeated reports during one exchange of gunfire. Overall, Jesnick said the department documented that about a quarter of ShotSpotter incidents resulted in follow‑up activity that produced evidence, citations, firearm seizures or arrests (about 27% in year one, about 18% in year two, roughly 22% across both years).
Jesnick highlighted outcomes the department says would not have occurred without the alerts: “Two‑thirds of the firearms that we seized — eight of 12 over the two years — were on the basis of ShotSpotter alone,” he said. He added that 9 of 16 arrests over the two years came from incidents where the police did not receive a 911 call but responded after a ShotSpotter alert. He also said the department collected fired cartridge casings at locations it otherwise might not have known to search.
Council members questioned the data and operational value. Councilmember Perrette Parker asked about how the dataset treats non‑gunfire sounds and how the department separates false positives such as fireworks or car backfires from confirmed incidents. “So are the ShotSpotter notifications inclusive of, like, all the other things like fireworks and back cars backfire and all the other notifications, or where are those categorized on here?” Parker asked. Jesnick said the vendor vets alerts with an automated filter and a human review team before dispatching notifications to the department.
Diana Marks asked whether the department has compared ShotSpotter to other products and how renewal costs would be addressed. Jesnick said the vendor quoted $99,000 a year for renewal options and that the department is researching alternatives, including Flock Safety’s Raven audio sensor and additional camera deployments, and would return with a cost‑benefit comparison.
Jesnick also described technology integrations the department uses with ShotSpotter alerts: drone deployments (the department reported 25 drone launches tied to about 20 separate incidents last year), a BallisticsIQ program to triage and submit fired‑cartridge‑casing data to the ATF, and the department’s UAS (drone) program used to supplement officer response.
No action requested: Jesnick said the department was not seeking immediate council action and would present cost and alternative analyses during the FY2026 budget process. He told the council he expected to return with more detailed heat maps and comparative data.
Council reaction and next steps: Several council members asked the department to show how ShotSpotter activity correlates with overall crime trends and to provide auditable metrics on officers’ field response time and search thoroughness. Jesnick said he will bring refined maps, comparative vendor pricing, and additional operational metrics for council review before any renewal vote.
Ending: The council took no immediate vote; staff will return with a proposal and cost comparisons for consideration in next year’s budget cycle.
Jesnick told the council the service began April 20, 2023, covers roughly 2 square miles (about 10% of the city) and provides suspected outdoor gunfire alerts with an approximate location within 25 meters (about 82 feet) to dispatch and patrol within about 60 seconds. He said the pilot has been funded with American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and would need to come from the police budget if continued.
Why it matters: Jesnick framed the briefing as timely because the three‑year contract entered its third year in April 2025 and any renewal would need to be budgeted for FY2026. Council members pressed for evidence the system improves public safety and for comparisons with alternatives and costs before committing general fund dollars.
Jesnick presented the program’s operational data for the first two years: the department received a large number of vetted ShotSpotter notifications over the two‑year period, which translated into a smaller number of distinct gunfire incidents (27 incidents in year one, 20 in year two). He said investigators combine multiple notifications into single incidents when the technology registers pauses and repeated reports during one exchange of gunfire. Overall, Jesnick said the department documented that about a quarter of ShotSpotter incidents resulted in follow‑up activity that produced evidence, citations, firearm seizures or arrests (about 27% in year one, about 18% in year two, roughly 22% across both years).
Jesnick highlighted outcomes the department says would not have occurred without the alerts: “Two‑thirds of the firearms that we seized — eight of 12 over the two years — were on the basis of ShotSpotter alone,” he said. He added that 9 of 16 arrests over the two years came from incidents where the police did not receive a 911 call but responded after a ShotSpotter alert. He also said the department collected fired cartridge casings at locations it otherwise might not have known to search.
Council members questioned the data and operational value. Councilmember Perrette Parker asked about how the dataset treats non‑gunfire sounds and how the department separates false positives such as fireworks or car backfires from confirmed incidents. “So are the ShotSpotter notifications inclusive of, like, all the other things like fireworks and back cars backfire and all the other notifications, or where are those categorized on here?” Parker asked. Jesnick said the vendor vets alerts with an automated filter and a human review team before dispatching notifications to the department.
Diana Marks asked whether the department has compared ShotSpotter to other products and how renewal costs would be addressed. Jesnick said the vendor quoted $99,000 a year for renewal options and that the department is researching alternatives, including Flock Safety’s Raven audio sensor and additional camera deployments, and would return with a cost‑benefit comparison.
Jesnick also described technology integrations the department uses with ShotSpotter alerts: drone deployments (the department reported 25 drone launches tied to about 20 separate incidents last year), a BallisticsIQ program to triage and submit fired‑cartridge‑casing data to the ATF, and the department’s UAS (drone) program used to supplement officer response.
No action requested: Jesnick said the department was not seeking immediate council action and would present cost and alternative analyses during the FY2026 budget process. He told the council he expected to return with more detailed heat maps and comparative data.
Council reaction and next steps: Several council members asked the department to show how ShotSpotter activity correlates with overall crime trends and to provide auditable metrics on officers’ field response time and search thoroughness. Jesnick said he will bring refined maps, comparative vendor pricing, and additional operational metrics for council review before any renewal vote.
Ending: The council took no immediate vote; staff will return with a proposal and cost comparisons for consideration in next year’s budget cycle.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
