COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES *COVID-19 pandemic* The COVID-19 pandemic represents a fluid situation that presents a wide range of potential impacts of varying durations for different global geographies, including locations where we have offices, employees, customers, vendors and other suppliers and business partners. Like most US-based businesses, the COVID-19 pandemic and efforts to mitigate the same began to have impacts on our business in March 2020. Since that time, the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted the global health and economic environment, including millions of confirmed cases, business slowdowns or shutdowns, labor shortages, supply chain challenges, changes in government spending and requirements, regulatory challenges, inflationary pressures and market volatility. We operate within the complex integrated global supply chain for both vendors and customers. As the COVID-19 pandemic dissipates at varying times and rates in different regions around the world, there could be a prolonged negative impact on these global supply chains. Our ability to continue operations at specific facilities will be impacted by the interdependencies of the various participants of these global supply chains, which are largely beyond our direct control. A prolonged shut down of these global supply chains could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. If our suppliers have increased challenges with their workforce (including as a result of illness, absenteeism, reactions to health and safety or government requirements), facility closures, timely access to necessary components, materials and other supplies at reasonable prices, access to capital, and access to fundamental support services (such as shipping and transportation), they may be unable to provide the agreed-upon goods and services in a timely, compliant and cost-effective manner. We have incurred and may in the future incur additional costs and delays in our business resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, including as a result of higher prices, schedule delays or the need to identify and develop alternative suppliers. In some instances, we may be unable to identify and develop alternative suppliers, incurring additional liabilities under our current contracts and hampering new ones. Our customers have experienced, and may continue to experience, disruptions in their operations and supply chains as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can result in delayed, reduced, or canceled orders, or collection risks, and which may adversely affect our results of operations. Similarly, current, and future restrictions or disruptions of transportation, such as reduced availability of air transport, port closures or delays, and increased border controls, delays or closures, can also impact our ability to meet demand and could materially adversely affect us. The spread of COVID-19 caused us to modify our business practices (including employee travel, employee work locations, cancellation of physical participation in meetings, events and conferences, and social distancing measures), and we may take further actions as may be required by government authorities or that we determine are in the best interests of our employees, customers, partners, vendors, and suppliers. Although we managed to continue most of our operations, the future course of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain and we cannot assure that this global pandemic, including its economic impact, will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations and/or cash flows. *Litigation.* From time to time, we are notified that we may be a party to a lawsuit or that a claim is being made against us. It is our policy to not disclose the specifics of any claim or threatened lawsuit until the summons and complaint are actually served on us. After carefully assessing the claim, and assuming we determine that we are not at fault or we disagree with the damages or relief demanded, we vigorously defend any lawsuit filed against us. We record a liability when losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. When losses are deemed reasonably possible but not probable, we determine whether it is possible to provide an estimate of the amount of the loss or range of possible losses for the claim, if material for disclosure. In evaluating matters for accrual and disclosure purposes, we take into consideration factors such as our historical experience with matters of a similar nature, the specific facts and circumstances asserted, the likelihood of our prevailing, the availability of insurance, and the severity of any potential loss. We reevaluate and update accruals as matters progress over time. While the ultimate resolution is unknown, based on the information currently available, we do not expect that these lawsuits will individually, or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect to our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. However, the outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance that any expense, liability or damages that may ultimately result from the resolution of these matters will be covered by our insurance or will not be in excess of amounts recognized or provided by insurance coverage and will not have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition or cash flows. *Axon* The Company owns U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 (the “ ‘452 Patent’ “), which generally covers the automatic activation and coordination of multiple recording devices in response to a triggering event, such as a law enforcement officer activating the light bar on the vehicle. The Company filed suit on January 15, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Case No: 2:16-cv-02032) against Axon, alleging willful patent infringement against Axon’s body camera product line and Signal auto-activation product. The Company is seeking both monetary damages and a permanent injunction against Axon for infringement of the ‘452 Patent. In December 2016 and January 2017, Axon filed two petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) against the ‘452 Patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) rejected both of Axon’s petitions. Axon is now statutorily precluded from filing any more IPR petitions against the ‘452 Patent. The District Court litigation in Kansas was temporarily stayed following the filing of the petitions for IPR. However, on November 17, 2017, the Federal District Court of Kansas rejected Axon’s request to maintain the stay. With this significant ruling, the parties will now proceed towards trial. Since litigation has resumed, the Court has issued a claim construction order (also called a Markman Order) where it sided with the Company on all disputes and denied Axon’s attempts to limit the scope of the claims. Following the Markman Order, the Court set all remaining deadlines in the case. Fact discovery closed on October 8, 2018, and a Final Pretrial Conference took place on January 16, 2019. The parties filed motions for summary judgment on January 31, 2019. On June 17, 2019, the Court granted Axon’s motion for summary judgment that Axon did not infringe on the Company’s patent and dismissed the case. Importantly, the Court’s ruling did not find that Digital’s ‘452 Patent was invalid. It also did not address any other issue, such as whether Digital’s requested damages were appropriate, and it did not impact the Company’s ability to file additional lawsuits to hold other competitors accountable for patent infringement. This ruling solely related to an interpretation of the claims as they relate to Axon and was unrelated to the supplemental briefing Digital recently filed on its damages claim and the WatchGuard settlement. Those issues are separate and the judge’s ruling on summary judgment had nothing to do with Digital’s damages request. The Company has filed an appeal to this ruling and has asked the appellate court to reverse this decision. The Company filed an opening appeal brief on August 26, 2019 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”), appealing the U.S. District Court’s granting of Axon’s motion for summary judgment. Axon responded by filing a responsive brief on November 6, 2019 and we then filed a reply brief responding to Axon on November 27, 2019. The Court of Appeals scheduled oral arguments on our appeal of the U.S. District Court’s summary judgment ruling on April 6, 2020. This appeal was intended to address the Company’s position that the U.S. District Court incorrectly dismissed our claims against Axon. If the Court of Appeals overturns the ruling of the U.S. District Court, the case will be remanded to the U.S District Court before a new judge. On March 12, 2020, the panel of judges for the Court of Appeals issued an order cancelling the oral arguments previously set for April 6, 2020, having determined that the appeal will be decided solely based on the parties’ briefs. On April 22, 2020, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals denied our appeal and affirmed the District Court’s previous decision to grant Axon summary judgment. On May 22, 2020, we filed a petition for panel rehearing requesting that we be granted a rehearing of our appeal of the U.S. District Court’s summary judgment ruling. Furthermore, we requested that we be given an opportunity to make our case through oral argument in front of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, which was also denied. The Company has abandoned its right to any further appeals. *General* *401 (k) Plan.* The Company sponsors a 401(k) retirement savings plan for the benefit of its employees. The plan, as amended, requires it to provide 100% matching contributions for employees, who elect to contribute up to 3% of their compensation to the plan and 50% matching contributions for employee’s elective deferrals on the next 2% of their contributions. The Company made matching contributions totaling $127,293 and $110,491 for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Each participant is 100% vested at all times in employee and employer matching contributions. *Consulting and Distributor Agreements.* The Company entered into an agreement that required it to make monthly payments that will be applied to future commissions and/or consulting fees to be earned by the provider. The agreement is with a limited liability company (“LLC”) that is minority owned by a relative of the Company’s chief financial officer. Under the agreement, dated January 15, 2016, and as amended on February 13, 2017, the LLC provides consulting services for developing a new distribution channel outside of law enforcement for its body-worn camera and related cloud storage products to customers in the United States. The Company advanced amounts to the LLC against commissions ranging from $5,000 to $6,000 per month plus necessary and reasonable expenses for the period through June 30, 2017, which can be automatically extended based on the LLC achieving minimum sales quotas. The agreement was renewed in January 2017 for a period of three years, subject to yearly minimum sales thresholds that would allow the Company to terminate the contract if such minimums are not met. As of December 31, 2021, the Company had advanced a total of $274,731 pursuant to this agreement which has been fully reserved for a net advance of $-0-. The minimum sales threshold was not met, and the Company discontinued all advances, although the contract has not been formally terminated. However, the exclusivity provisions of the agreement have been terminated. On June 1, 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with an individual that required it to make monthly payments that will be applied to future commissions and/or consulting fees to be earned by the provider. Under the agreement, the individual provides consulting services for developing new distribution channels both inside and outside of law enforcement for its in-car and body-worn camera systems and related cloud storage products to customers within and outside the United States. The Company was required to advance amounts to the individual as an advance against commissions of $7,000 per month plus necessary and reasonable expenses for the period through August 31, 2018, which was extended to December 31, 2018, by mutual agreement of the parties at $6,000 per month. The parties have mutually agreed to further extend the arrangement on a monthly basis at $5,000 per month. The Company had advanced a total of $53,332 pursuant to this agreement, until September 2020 when the agreement was mutually terminated, thus as of December 31, 2021, the Company had advanced $-0- pursuant to this agreement.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a fluid situation that presents a wide range of potential impacts of varying durations for different global geographies, including locations where we have offices, employees, customers, vendors and other suppliers and business partners.

Like most US-based businesses, the COVID-19 pandemic and efforts to mitigate the same began to have impacts on our business in March 2020. Since that time, the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted the global health and economic environment, including millions of confirmed cases, business slowdowns or shutdowns, labor shortages, supply chain challenges, changes in government spending and requirements, regulatory challenges, inflationary pressures and market volatility.

We operate within the complex integrated global supply chain for both vendors and customers. As the COVID-19 pandemic dissipates at varying times and rates in different regions around the world, there could be a prolonged negative impact on these global supply chains. Our ability to continue operations at specific facilities will be impacted by the interdependencies of the various participants of these global supply chains, which are largely beyond our direct control. A prolonged shut down of these global supply chains could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

If our suppliers have increased challenges with their workforce (including as a result of illness, absenteeism, reactions to health and safety or government requirements), facility closures, timely access to necessary components, materials and other supplies at reasonable prices, access to capital, and access to fundamental support services (such as shipping and transportation), they may be unable to provide the agreed-upon goods and services in a timely, compliant and cost-effective manner. We have incurred and may in the future incur additional costs and delays in our business resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, including as a result of higher prices, schedule delays or the need to identify and develop alternative suppliers. In some instances, we may be unable to identify and develop alternative suppliers, incurring additional liabilities under our current contracts and hampering new ones. Our customers have experienced, and may continue to experience, disruptions in their operations and supply chains as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can result in delayed, reduced, or canceled orders, or collection risks, and which may adversely affect our results of operations. Similarly, current, and future restrictions or disruptions of transportation, such as reduced availability of air transport, port closures or delays, and increased border controls, delays or closures, can also impact our ability to meet demand and could materially adversely affect us.

The spread of COVID-19 caused us to modify our business practices (including employee travel, employee work locations, cancellation of physical participation in meetings, events and conferences, and social distancing measures), and we may take further actions as may be required by government authorities or that we determine are in the best interests of our employees, customers, partners, vendors, and suppliers. Although we managed to continue most of our operations, the future course of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain and we cannot assure that this global pandemic, including its economic impact, will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations and/or cash flows.

Litigation.

From time to time, we are notified that we may be a party to a lawsuit or that a claim is being made against us. It is our policy to not disclose the specifics of any claim or threatened lawsuit until the summons and complaint are actually served on us. After carefully assessing the claim, and assuming we determine that we are not at fault or we disagree with the damages or relief demanded, we vigorously defend any lawsuit filed against us. We record a liability when losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. When losses are deemed reasonably possible but not probable, we determine whether it is possible to provide an estimate of the amount of the loss or range of possible losses for the claim, if material for disclosure. In evaluating matters for accrual and disclosure purposes, we take into consideration factors such as our historical experience with matters of a similar nature, the specific facts and circumstances asserted, the likelihood of our prevailing, the availability of insurance, and the severity of any potential loss. We reevaluate and update accruals as matters progress over time.

While the ultimate resolution is unknown, based on the information currently available, we do not expect that these lawsuits will individually, or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect to our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. However, the outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance that any expense, liability or damages that may ultimately result from the resolution of these matters will be covered by our insurance or will not be in excess of amounts recognized or provided by insurance coverage and will not have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition or cash flows.

Axon

The Company owns U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 (the “ ‘452 Patent’ “), which generally covers the automatic activation and coordination of multiple recording devices in response to a triggering event, such as a law enforcement officer activating the light bar on the vehicle.

The Company filed suit on January 15, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Case No: 2:16-cv-02032) against Axon, alleging willful patent infringement against Axon’s body camera product line and Signal auto-activation product. The Company is seeking both monetary damages and a permanent injunction against Axon for infringement of the ‘452 Patent.

In December 2016 and January 2017, Axon filed two petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) against the ‘452 Patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) rejected both of Axon’s petitions. Axon is now statutorily precluded from filing any more IPR petitions against the ‘452 Patent.

The District Court litigation in Kansas was temporarily stayed following the filing of the petitions for IPR. However, on November 17, 2017, the Federal District Court of Kansas rejected Axon’s request to maintain the stay. With this significant ruling, the parties will now proceed towards trial. Since litigation has resumed, the Court has issued a claim construction order (also called a Markman Order) where it sided with the Company on all disputes and denied Axon’s attempts to limit the scope of the claims. Following the Markman Order, the Court set all remaining deadlines in the case. Fact discovery closed on October 8, 2018, and a Final Pretrial Conference took place on January 16, 2019. The parties filed motions for summary judgment on January 31, 2019.

On June 17, 2019, the Court granted Axon’s motion for summary judgment that Axon did not infringe on the Company’s patent and dismissed the case. Importantly, the Court’s ruling did not find that Digital’s ‘452 Patent was invalid. It also did not address any other issue, such as whether Digital’s requested damages were appropriate, and it did not impact the Company’s ability to file additional lawsuits to hold other competitors accountable for patent infringement. This ruling solely related to an interpretation of the claims as they relate to Axon and was unrelated to the supplemental briefing Digital recently filed on its damages claim and the WatchGuard settlement. Those issues are separate and the judge’s ruling on summary judgment had nothing to do with Digital’s damages request. The Company has filed an appeal to this ruling and has asked the appellate court to reverse this decision.

The Company filed an opening appeal brief on August 26, 2019 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”), appealing the U.S. District Court’s granting of Axon’s motion for summary judgment. Axon responded by filing a responsive brief on November 6, 2019 and we then filed a reply brief responding to Axon on November 27, 2019. The Court of Appeals scheduled oral arguments on our appeal of the U.S. District Court’s summary judgment ruling on April 6, 2020. This appeal was intended to address the Company’s position that the U.S. District Court incorrectly dismissed our claims against Axon. If the Court of Appeals overturns the ruling of the U.S. District Court, the case will be remanded to the U.S District Court before a new judge. On March 12, 2020, the panel of judges for the Court of Appeals issued an order cancelling the oral arguments previously set for April 6, 2020, having determined that the appeal will be decided solely based on the parties’ briefs. On April 22, 2020, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals denied our appeal and affirmed the District Court’s previous decision to grant Axon summary judgment. On May 22, 2020, we filed a petition for panel rehearing requesting that we be granted a rehearing of our appeal of the U.S. District Court’s summary judgment ruling. Furthermore, we requested that we be given an opportunity to make our case through oral argument in front of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, which was also denied. The Company has abandoned its right to any further appeals.

General

401 (k) Plan. The Company sponsors a 401(k) retirement savings plan for the benefit of its employees. The plan, as amended, requires it to provide 100% matching contributions for employees, who elect to contribute up to 3% of their compensation to the plan and 50% matching contributions for employee’s elective deferrals on the next 2% of their contributions. The Company made matching contributions totaling $127,293 and $110,491 for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Each participant is 100% vested at all times in employee and employer matching contributions.

Consulting and Distributor Agreements. The Company entered into an agreement that required it to make monthly payments that will be applied to future commissions and/or consulting fees to be earned by the provider. The agreement is with a limited liability company (“LLC”) that is minority owned by a relative of the Company’s chief financial officer. Under the agreement, dated January 15, 2016, and as amended on February 13, 2017, the LLC provides consulting services for developing a new distribution channel outside of law enforcement for its body-worn camera and related cloud storage products to customers in the United States. The Company advanced amounts to the LLC against commissions ranging from $5,000 to $6,000 per month plus necessary and reasonable expenses for the period through June 30, 2017, which can be automatically extended based on the LLC achieving minimum sales quotas. The agreement was renewed in January 2017 for a period of three years, subject to yearly minimum sales thresholds that would allow the Company to terminate the contract if such minimums are not met. As of December 31, 2021, the Company had advanced a total of $274,731 pursuant to this agreement which has been fully reserved for a net advance of $-0-. The minimum sales threshold was not met, and the Company discontinued all advances, although the contract has not been formally terminated. However, the exclusivity provisions of the agreement have been terminated.

On June 1, 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with an individual that required it to make monthly payments that will be applied to future commissions and/or consulting fees to be earned by the provider. Under the agreement, the individual provides consulting services for developing new distribution channels both inside and outside of law enforcement for its in-car and body-worn camera systems and related cloud storage products to customers within and outside the United States. The Company was required to advance amounts to the individual as an advance against commissions of $7,000 per month plus necessary and reasonable expenses for the period through August 31, 2018, which was extended to December 31, 2018, by mutual agreement of the parties at $6,000 per month. The parties have mutually agreed to further extend the arrangement on a monthly basis at $5,000 per month. The Company had advanced a total of $53,332 pursuant to this agreement, until September 2020 when the agreement was mutually terminated, thus as of December 31, 2021, the Company had advanced $-0- pursuant to this agreement.