Code Four

What do they actually do

Code Four runs a cloud platform (ReportAI and Redaction) that ingests body‑worn camera and other video, transcribes and timestamps it, builds a searchable timeline with key frames/objects, auto‑drafts incident narratives in an agency’s format, and provides one‑click masking of faces/plates/PII with audit logs and chain‑of‑custody tracking. Deployments run in a GovCloud environment with a CJIS‑equivalent posture for law‑enforcement data handling, and evidence/reports are searchable and exportable from the platform (homepage; Terms of Service; YC page).

Typical use today: agencies upload or connect bodycam footage and metadata, let the platform generate transcripts/timelines and a draft report for officers to review, then use the redaction tools and export the results as needed. The company offers pilots that convert to annual terms, cites 2–4 week implementations, and has a public case study with Pocatello PD where they processed ~850 GB of video and built custom integrations (e.g., Panasonic/i‑Pro) to validate search and redaction workflows. Their terms note they process evidence and do not write back to CAD/RMS systems (homepage; Terms; Pocatello case study; YC page).

Who are their target customer(s)

• Patrol officers: Spend significant shift time transcribing bodycam audio and drafting narratives; need accurate, department‑formatted drafts they can verify instead of writing from scratch (homepage; YC page).
• Detectives / case investigators: Manually scrub hours of footage to reconstruct events; need reliable transcripts, timestamps, and key frames to build timelines quickly (YC page; Pocatello case study).
• Records/evidence staff / redaction teams: Backlogs of redactions and FOIA requests; need automated face/plate/voice/PII masking with audit logs and CJIS‑level handling to reduce legal/privacy risk (homepage; Terms).
• Police IT / technology directors: Heterogeneous camera vendors and strict security requirements; need integrations that work with existing systems, run in GovCloud/CJIS‑ready environments, and implement in weeks, not months (Pocatello case study; Terms; homepage).
• Agency leaders / procurement & compliance: Pressure to cut officer admin time while meeting privacy/audit rules and budgets; want measurable time savings from pilots that can convert to annual contracts if security/compliance checks pass (YC page; Terms).

How would they acquire their first 10, 50, and 100 customers

• First 10: Convert existing design partners and warm YC inbounds into paid pilots. Offer 2–4 week deployments with on‑site/custom adapter support, measure officer time saved and redaction throughput, and roll pilots into annual contracts per pilot→annual terms (homepage; Terms; case study).
• First 50: Use referenceable wins (e.g., Pocatello) and packaged integrations to run targeted outbound to records/evidence teams and police IT. Sell short pilots that minimize setup and emphasize reductions in reporting/redaction backlogs to speed procurement (case study; YC page; homepage).
• First 100: Layer on reseller/technology partnerships with camera vendors, regional SIs, and evidence‑locker providers; list on state/local procurement vehicles or grant catalogs to avoid lengthy RFPs. Use CJIS/GovCloud posture and a standard playbook to keep deployments within 2–4 weeks (homepage; Terms; case study).

What is the rough total addressable market

Top-down context:

There were 17,541 state and local law enforcement agencies in the U.S. in 2018, including local police departments and sheriffs’ offices, per BJS’s Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (BJS CSLLEA 2018). Body‑worn video has become widespread in recent years, with substantial adoption documented by 2016 BJS reporting, making video‑driven reporting and redaction a common workflow (BJS Body‑Worn Cameras, 2016).

Bottom-up calculation:

Focus on U.S. local police and sheriffs likely to use body‑worn video and adopt third‑party software outside a hardware bundle. Assume ~7,000 targetable agencies in the near term, with an average annual spend of ~$25,000 for ingestion/transcription/report drafting/redaction. That implies a U.S. TAM of roughly $175M (7,000 × $25k).

Assumptions:

• Targetable subset limited to local police and sheriffs with active or planned body‑worn video programs; excludes very small/special‑purpose agencies.
• Average ARR per agency of ~$25k reflects small/mid‑size departments buying software (not bundled hardware), covering transcription, report drafting, and redaction seats.
• Adoption outside incumbent hardware bundles (e.g., Axon/Motorola) will be partial; the 7,000‑agency figure represents those open to third‑party platforms in the near term.

Who are some of their notable competitors

• Axon: Incumbent body‑worn camera vendor with Axon Evidence cloud, AI transcription/redaction, and “Draft One” report drafting; competes end‑to‑end and benefits from a large installed base and hardware bundles (Evidence; Redaction).
• Motorola Solutions: CommandCentral Evidence/Vault integrates transcription, AI redaction, search, and ties into CAD/RMS and Motorola’s camera/command products; strong with larger agencies and enterprise bundles (Vault; Evidence).
• Veritone (Redact): AI redaction/transcription platform (Redact/aiWARE) used by public safety and legal teams; overlaps on automated redaction, searchable transcripts, and audit logs but is positioned primarily as a redaction engine.
• Mark43: Cloud RMS/CAD vendor with digital evidence and report automation; competes where agencies prefer tightly integrated records/evidence/reporting in a single suite rather than a standalone tool.
• Pimloc / Secure Redact: Specialist video‑privacy/redaction software with automatic detection and bulk processing; strong fit for agencies focused on redaction/PII workflows without broader report generation.