Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.184 (2026)

Proceedings upon complaint for offenses triable in another county

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 171.184  Proceedings upon complaint for offenses triable in another county.

      1.  When a complaint is laid before a magistrate of the commission of a public offense triable in another county of the State, but showing that the defendant is in the county where the complaint is laid, the same proceedings must be had as prescribed in this chapter except that the warrant must require the defendant to be taken before the nearest or most accessible magistrate of the county in which the offense is triable, and the depositions of the complainant or prosecutor, and of the witnesses who may have been produced, must be delivered by the magistrate to the officer to whom the warrant is delivered.

      2.  The officer who executed the warrant must take the defendant before the nearest or most accessible magistrate of the county in which the offense is triable, and must deliver the depositions and the warrant, with the officer’s return endorsed thereon, and the magistrate must then proceed in the same manner as upon a warrant issued by the magistrate.

      3.  If the offense charged in the warrant issued pursuant to subsection 1 is a misdemeanor, the officer must, upon being required by the defendant, take the defendant before a magistrate of the county in which the warrant was issued, who must admit the defendant to bail, and immediately transmit the warrant, depositions and undertaking to the justice of the peace or clerk of the court in which the defendant is required to appear.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1405)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1969–1969 · leading case: Tellis v. Sheriff of Clark Cnty., 459 P.2d 364 (Nev. 1969).
Tellis v. Sheriff of Clark Cnty., 459 P.2d 364 (Nev. 1969). · cites it 2× “Here we are concerned only with the appellant’s due process rights between the time of his arrest on December 2, 1967 and his arraignment on January 23, 1968.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.