Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.460 (2026)

Circumstances in which interception of communications may be authorized; immunity

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 179.460 Circumstances in which interception of communications may be authorized; immunity.

1. The Attorney General or the district attorney of any county may apply to a Supreme Court justice or to a district judge in the county where the interception is to take place for an order authorizing the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications, and the judge may, in accordance with NRS 179.470 to 179.515, inclusive, grant an order authorizing the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications by investigative or law enforcement officers having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made, when the interception may provide evidence of the commission of murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, bribery, escape of an offender in the custody of the Department of Corrections, destruction of public property by explosives, a sexual offense against a child, sex trafficking, a violation of NRS 200.463, 200.464 or 200.465, trafficking in persons in violation of NRS 200.467 or 200.468, a violation of NRS 201.553, the commission of any offense which is made a felony by the provisions of chapter 453 or 454 of NRS or a violation of NRS 463.160 or 465.086.

2. A provider of electronic communication service or a public utility, an officer, employee or agent thereof or another person associated with the provider of electronic communication service or public utility who, pursuant to an order issued pursuant to subsection 1, provides information or otherwise assists an investigative or law enforcement officer in the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication is immune from any liability relating to any interception made pursuant to the order.

3. As used in this section, “sexual offense against a child” includes any act upon a child constituting:

(a) Incest pursuant to NRS 201.180;

(b) Lewdness with a child pursuant to NRS 201.230;

(d) Sexual assault pursuant to NRS 200.366;

(e) Statutory sexual seduction pursuant to NRS 200.368;

(f) Open or gross lewdness pursuant to NRS 201.210; or

(g) Luring a child or a person with mental illness pursuant to NRS 201.560, if punished as a felony.

(Added to NRS by 1973, 1743; A 1975, 1520; 1993, 99; 2001, 2794; 2003, 1387; 2011, 20; 2013, 2421; 2015, 2489; 2019, 826; 2023, 2469)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1974–2015 · leading case: Price v. Goldman, 525 P.2d 598 (Nev. 1974).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Price v. Goldman, 525 P.2d 598 (Nev. 1974). · cites it 4× “He asks this court to arrest proceedings which the Eighth Judicial District Court has undertaken, seeking to investigate unauthorized disclosure of information police allegedly obtained through a telephone wiretap that the District Court purportedly authorized pursuant to NRS…”

State v. Reyes, 808 P.2d 544 (Nev. 1991). · cites it 2× “” NRS 179.460 prescribes the procedure to obtain authorization for the interception of wire or oral communications.”

Sharpe (phillip) Vs. State, 2015 NV 32 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 10× “455 and NRS 179.460. See 1973 Nev. Stat., ch. 791, §§ 10, 11, at 1743.”

Sharpe (phillip) Vs. State, 2015 NV 32 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 5× “455 and NRS 179.460. See 1973 Nev. Stat., ch. 791, §§ 10, 11, at 1743.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.460(1) — 2 cases

Sharpe (phillip) Vs. State, 2015 NV 32 (Nev. 2015). “455 and NRS 179.460. See 1973 Nev. Stat., ch. 791, §§ 10, 11, at 1743.”

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.