NRS
179.045 Issuance and contents; sealing information upon which warrant is
based; time for serving warrant.
1. A search warrant may issue only on
affidavit or affidavits sworn to before the magistrate and establishing the
grounds for issuing the warrant or as provided in subsection 3. If the
magistrate is satisfied that grounds for the application exist or that there is
probable cause to believe that they exist, the magistrate shall issue a warrant
identifying the property and naming or describing the person or place to be
searched.
2. Secure electronic transmission may be
used for the submission of an application and affidavit required by subsection
1, and for the issuance of a search warrant by a magistrate. The Nevada Supreme
Court may adopt rules not inconsistent with the laws of this State to carry out
the provisions of this subsection.
3. In lieu of the affidavit required by
subsection 1, the magistrate may take an oral statement given under oath, which
must be recorded in the presence of the magistrate or in the magistrate’s immediate
vicinity by a certified court reporter or by electronic means, transcribed,
certified by the reporter if the reporter recorded it, and certified by the
magistrate. The statement must be filed with the clerk of the court.
4. Upon a showing of good cause, the
magistrate may order an affidavit or a recording of an oral statement given
pursuant to this section to be sealed. Upon a showing of good cause, a court
may cause the affidavit or recording to be unsealed.
5. After a magistrate has issued a search
warrant, whether it is based on an affidavit or an oral statement given under
oath, the magistrate may orally authorize a peace officer to sign the name of
the magistrate on a duplicate original warrant. A duplicate original search
warrant shall be deemed to be a search warrant. It must be returned to the
magistrate who authorized the signing of it. The magistrate shall endorse his
or her name and enter the date on the warrant when it is returned. Any failure
of the magistrate to make such an endorsement and entry does not in itself
invalidate the warrant.
6. The warrant must:
(a) Be directed to a peace officer in the county
where the warrant is to be executed;
(b) State the grounds or probable cause for its
issuance and the names of the persons whose affidavits have been taken in
support thereof, or incorporate by reference the affidavit or oral statement
upon which it is based;
(c) Command the peace officer to search forthwith
the person or place named for the property specified;
(d) Direct that the warrant be served between the
hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., unless the magistrate, upon a showing of good cause
therefor, inserts a direction that the warrant be served at any time;
(e) Designate the magistrate to whom it is to be
returned; and
(f) Indicate whether the search warrant is a
no-knock warrant.
7. As used in this section, “secure
electronic transmission” means the sending of information from one computer
system to another computer system in such a manner as to ensure that:
(a) No person other than the intended recipient
receives the information;
(b) The identity of the sender of the information
can be authenticated; and
(c) The information which is received by the
intended recipient is identical to the information that was sent.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
1459; A 1975,
39; 1981,
1652; 1993,
1412; 1997,
741; 2015,
2487; 2021,
196)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case:
State v. Allen, 69 P.3d 232 (Nev. 2003).
State v. Allen, 69 P.3d 232 (Nev. 2003).
· cites it 22× “The Nevada Legislature amended NRS 179.045 in 1997 to permit a magistrate to seal the affidavit of probable cause upon a *171 showing of good cause.”
State v. Allen, 60 P.3d 475 (Nev. 2002).
· cites it 18× “The Nevada Legislature amended NRS 179.045 in 1997 to permit a magistrate to seal the affidavit of probable cause upon a showing of good cause.”
State v. Gameros-Perez, 78 P.3d 511 (Nev. 2003).
· cites it 27× “However, because of a degree of confusion surrounding our statements concerning the requirements of NRS 179.045 in both Allen I and Allen II, we now take this further opportunity to clarify the two decisions.”
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013).
“05 (2008) ; Nev.Rev.Stat. § 179.045(2), (4) (2011); N.”
State v. Kincade, 2013 NV 102 (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 16× “045(5) provides that a warrant must either include a statement of probable cause or have the affidavit upon which probable cause is based attached. NRS 179.085 provides that a person may move to suppress evidence on the ground that “[t]he warrant is insufficient on its face.”
Barrios-Lomeli v. State, 961 P.2d 750 (Nev. 1997).
· cites it 8× “045 provided in material part: 2. In lieu of the affidavit required by subsection 1, the magistrate may take an oral statement given under oath, which must be recorded in the presence of the magistrate or in his immediate vicinity by a certified court reporter or by electronic…”
Camacho v. State, 75 P.3d 370 (Nev. 2003).
· cites it 2× “2d 1180, 1182-83 (1998) ( Harnisch II ) (while federal law does not require exigent circumstances for application of automobile exception, Nevada Constitution requires both probable cause and exigent circumstances).”
Barrios-Lomeli v. State, 944 P.2d 791 (Nev. 1997).
· cites it 4× “123(4) should have provided the Tri-Net agents with an opportunity to procure a telephonic warrant pursuant to NRS 179.045. [4] If, however, one hour would have been insufficient to secure a warrant, an exigency may have arisen.”
State v. Lloyd, 312 P.3d 467 (Nev. 2013).
“In this day of modern technology and the allowance of telephonic search warrants, NRS 179.045(2), there is no plausible reason why an officer, after bringing a drug dog to establish probable cause, should fail to attempt to obtain a telephonic search warrant.”
Sanchez v. State, 734 P.2d 726 (Nev. 1987).
· cites it 3× “The search warrant statute, NRS 179.045, specifies the requirements for a search warrant.”
Smithart v. State, 478 P.2d 576 (Nev. 1970).
· cites it 2× “NRS 179.045(31. 1 The word “forthwith” must be read in the light of NRS 179.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.045(1) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.045(2) — 8 cases
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013).
“05 (2008) ; Nev.Rev.Stat. § 179.045(2), (4) (2011); N.”
State v. Allen, 69 P.3d 232 (Nev. 2003).
“The Nevada Legislature amended NRS 179.045 in 1997 to permit a magistrate to seal the affidavit of probable cause upon a *171 showing of good cause.”
State v. Gameros-Perez, 78 P.3d 511 (Nev. 2003).
“However, because of a degree of confusion surrounding our statements concerning the requirements of NRS 179.045 in both Allen I and Allen II, we now take this further opportunity to clarify the two decisions.”
State v. Lloyd, 312 P.3d 467 (Nev. 2013).
“In this day of modern technology and the allowance of telephonic search warrants, NRS 179.045(2), there is no plausible reason why an officer, after bringing a drug dog to establish probable cause, should fail to attempt to obtain a telephonic search warrant.”
Barrios-Lomeli v. State, 944 P.2d 791 (Nev. 1997).
“123(4) should have provided the Tri-Net agents with an opportunity to procure a telephonic warrant pursuant to NRS 179.045. [4] If, however, one hour would have been insufficient to secure a warrant, an exigency may have arisen.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.045(3) — 5 cases
State v. Allen, 69 P.3d 232 (Nev. 2003).
“The Nevada Legislature amended NRS 179.045 in 1997 to permit a magistrate to seal the affidavit of probable cause upon a *171 showing of good cause.”
State v. Allen, 60 P.3d 475 (Nev. 2002).
“The Nevada Legislature amended NRS 179.045 in 1997 to permit a magistrate to seal the affidavit of probable cause upon a showing of good cause.”
State v. Gameros-Perez, 78 P.3d 511 (Nev. 2003).
“However, because of a degree of confusion surrounding our statements concerning the requirements of NRS 179.045 in both Allen I and Allen II, we now take this further opportunity to clarify the two decisions.”
Smithart v. State, 478 P.2d 576 (Nev. 1970).
“NRS 179.045(31. 1 The word “forthwith” must be read in the light of NRS 179.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.045(4) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.045(5) — 5 cases
State v. Allen, 69 P.3d 232 (Nev. 2003).
“The Nevada Legislature amended NRS 179.045 in 1997 to permit a magistrate to seal the affidavit of probable cause upon a *171 showing of good cause.”
State v. Kincade, 2013 NV 102 (Nev. 2013).
“045(5) provides that a warrant must either include a statement of probable cause or have the affidavit upon which probable cause is based attached. NRS 179.085 provides that a person may move to suppress evidence on the ground that “[t]he warrant is insufficient on its face.”
State v. Allen, 60 P.3d 475 (Nev. 2002).
“The Nevada Legislature amended NRS 179.045 in 1997 to permit a magistrate to seal the affidavit of probable cause upon a showing of good cause.”
State v. Gameros-Perez, 78 P.3d 511 (Nev. 2003).
“However, because of a degree of confusion surrounding our statements concerning the requirements of NRS 179.045 in both Allen I and Allen II, we now take this further opportunity to clarify the two decisions.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.045(5)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Gameros-Perez, 78 P.3d 511 (Nev. 2003).
“However, because of a degree of confusion surrounding our statements concerning the requirements of NRS 179.045 in both Allen I and Allen II, we now take this further opportunity to clarify the two decisions.”
State v. Allen, 60 P.3d 475 (Nev. 2002).
“The Nevada Legislature amended NRS 179.045 in 1997 to permit a magistrate to seal the affidavit of probable cause upon a showing of good cause.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.045(5)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Allen, 69 P.3d 232 (Nev. 2003).
“The Nevada Legislature amended NRS 179.045 in 1997 to permit a magistrate to seal the affidavit of probable cause upon a *171 showing of good cause.”
State v. Allen, 60 P.3d 475 (Nev. 2002).
“The Nevada Legislature amended NRS 179.045 in 1997 to permit a magistrate to seal the affidavit of probable cause upon a showing of good cause.”
State v. Gameros-Perez, 78 P.3d 511 (Nev. 2003).
“However, because of a degree of confusion surrounding our statements concerning the requirements of NRS 179.045 in both Allen I and Allen II, we now take this further opportunity to clarify the two decisions.”
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.