Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.500 (2026)
Contents of intercepted communications inadmissible in evidence unless transcript provided to parties before trial
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 179.500 Contents of intercepted communications inadmissible in evidence
unless transcript provided to parties before trial. The
contents of any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication or evidence
derived therefrom must not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in
any trial, hearing or other proceeding in any court of this state unless each
party, not less than 10 days before the trial, hearing or proceeding, has been
furnished with a copy of the court order and accompanying application under
which the interception was authorized and a transcript of any communications
intercepted. Such 10-day period may be waived by the judge if the judge finds
that it was not possible to furnish the party with such information 10 days
before the trial, hearing or proceeding and that the party will not be
prejudiced by the delay in receiving such information.
(Added to NRS by 1973, 1747; A 2015, 2493)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: Amen v. State, 801 P.2d 1354 (Nev. 1990).
Amen v. State, 801 P.2d 1354 (Nev. 1990). “NRS 179.500, which requires court authorization for any intercepted wire or oral communication, is not implicated since the tapes in question were recorded out of state.”
Lewis v. State, 686 P.2d 219 (Nev. 1984). “3 Although appellant’s counsel took the stand and testified as to matters relevant to the effectiveness issue, the focus of the inquiry was whether transcripts of wiretap testimony had been made available, as required by NRS 179.500. If thus falls short of the hearing…”
Rupley v. State, 560 P.2d 146 (Nev. 1977). “ion through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device or of any sending or receiving *62 equipment,” 2 Here, a police officer acquired the contents of the wire communications between Rupley and an informant by attaching a suction-cup device to the receiver of the…”
Clark (William) v. State (Nev. 2022). “Suppression of incriminating statements Clark argues that his incriminating statements should not have been admitted because a portion of his recorded statements violated NRS 179.500, and his confession was not voluntary.”
Sheriff v. Cortopassi, 789 P.2d 582 (Nev. 1990). “The district court apparently accepted respondent’s claim that because “the grand jury hearing” was not furnished with a copy of the court order and accompanying application under which the interception was authorized, and a transcript was not provided, the evidence was…”
Jones v. United States (D. Nev. 2023). “410 to NRS 179.500. (ECF No. 45 at 14-15.) Jones relies on the 5 narrative description in the Reno Police Department Report (“Report”) of his arrest.”
Norton (Joseph) v. State (Nev. 2014). “Fifth, Norton contends that the district court erred by allowing the State to refer to the contents of jail phone calls during opening statements because he made a timely objection and those phone calls were not admitted during trial and were later excluded based on the State's…”
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.