Nevada interception of communications and private conversations (NRS 200.610 to 200.690)
Law. Placed at Nevada. Read 30 Sep 2026; 2 provisions cited by the planner.
What does NRS 200.620 and 200.650 require?
A person must not intercept, or attempt to intercept, a wire communication unless the chapter 179 court-order procedure is followed, or the interception has the prior consent of one party AND an emergency makes obtaining a court order impractical (then subject to ratification under 200.620(3)). Also cited: 200.650, in-person private conversations: do not listen or record surreptitiously unless one participant authorizes it.
NRS 200.620(1)Phone calls: do not intercept on one party's consent alone; in practice obtain the consent of all parties A person must not intercept, or attempt to intercept, a wire communication unless the chapter 179 court-order procedure is followed, or the interception has the prior consent of one party AND an emergency makes obtaining a court order impractical (then subject to ratification under 200.620(3)). A business recording calls cannot rely on one party's consent alone; as reported, the Nevada Supreme Court requires all parties' consent to record a call, so recorded lines should announce recording to every party. Wilful and knowing violation is a category D felony with civil damages (200.690).
NRS 200.650In-person private conversations: do not listen or record surreptitiously unless one participant authorizes it A person must not intrude on the privacy of others by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to do so, with any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, a private conversation engaged in by those other persons, or disclose the existence or contents of a conversation so obtained, unless authorized by one of the persons engaged in the conversation. A participant who records is authorized by their own participation. For an employer this covers covert audio monitoring of staff conversations by people who are not in them.