Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.465 (2026)

Disclosure or use of intercepted communications

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 179.465  Disclosure or use of intercepted communications.

      1.  Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, or 704.195 or 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2522, inclusive, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose the contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer or use the contents to the extent that the disclosure or use is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.

      2.  Any person who has received, by any means authorized by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, or 704.195 or 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2522, inclusive, or by a statute of another state, any information concerning a wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom intercepted in accordance with the provisions of NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, may disclose the contents of that communication or the derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any criminal proceeding in any court or before any grand jury in this state, or in any court of the United States or of any state, or in any federal or state grand jury proceeding.

      3.  An otherwise privileged wire, electronic or oral communication intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, or 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2522, inclusive, does not lose its privileged character.

      4.  When an investigative or law enforcement officer engaged in intercepting wire, electronic or oral communications as authorized by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, intercepts wire, electronic or oral communications relating to offenses other than those specified in the order provided for in NRS 179.460, the contents of the communications and the evidence derived therefrom may be disclosed or used as provided in subsection 1. The direct evidence derived from the communications is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding, but any other evidence obtained as a result of knowledge obtained from the communications may be disclosed or used as provided in subsection 2 when authorized or approved by a justice of the Supreme Court or district judge who finds upon application made as soon as practicable that the contents of the communications were intercepted in accordance with the provisions of NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, or 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2522, inclusive.

      (Added to NRS by 1973, 1743; A 1983, 117; 1989, 658; 2015, 2489)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1974–1984 · leading case: Koza v. State, 681 P.2d 44 (Nev. 1984).
Koza v. State, 681 P.2d 44 (Nev. 1984). · cites it 2× “Koza maintains, as he did at a pretrial suppression hearing, that NRS 179.465(2) implicitly prohibited the motel desk clerk’s disclosure of the contents of the overheard telephone conversation.”
Price v. Goldman, 525 P.2d 598 (Nev. 1974). “NRS 179.465 to 179.490; cf. Farr v. Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, 99 Cal.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.465(2) — 1 case
Koza v. State, 681 P.2d 44 (Nev. 1984). “Koza maintains, as he did at a pretrial suppression hearing, that NRS 179.465(2) implicitly prohibited the motel desk clerk’s disclosure of the contents of the overheard telephone conversation.”
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.