NRS
179.505 Motion to suppress.
1. Any aggrieved person in any trial,
hearing or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency or
other authority of this State, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to
suppress the contents of any intercepted wire, electronic or oral
communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that:
(a) The communication was unlawfully intercepted.
(b) The order of authorization under which it was
intercepted is insufficient on its face.
(c) The interception was not made in conformity
with the order of authorization.
(d) The period of the order and any extension had
expired.
2. Such a motion must be made before the
trial, hearing or proceeding unless there was no opportunity to make such a
motion or the person was not aware of the grounds of the motion. If the motion
is granted, the contents of the intercepted wire, electronic or oral
communication, or evidence derived therefrom, must be treated as having been
obtained in violation of NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive. The judge, upon the
filing of such motion by the aggrieved person, may in the judge’s discretion
make available to the aggrieved person or the aggrieved person’s counsel for
inspection such portions of the intercepted communication or evidence derived
therefrom as the judge determines to be in the interest of justice.
(Added to NRS by 1973,
1747; A 2015,
2493)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2023 · leading case:
Lane v. Allstate Ins., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998).
Lane v. Allstate Ins., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to NRS 179.505, the district court suppressed the tapes, the testimony regarding the personal recollections of the taped conversations of the parties to the conversations, and all evidence obtained from the tapes.”
State v. Pearce, 609 P.2d 1237 (Nev. 1980).
· cites it 4× “2 The state has failed to note language contained in the statute expressly limiting its applicability to motions to suppress “made under NRS 179.505.” NRS 179.505 deals solely with motions to suppress intercepted wire or oral communications.”
Rupley v. State, 560 P.2d 146 (Nev. 1977).
“NRS 179.505 provides for a motion to “suppress the contents of any [illegally] intercepted wire or oral communications.”
State v. Bonds, 550 P.2d 409 (Nev. 1976).
“1 Under NRS 179.505 an aggrieved person “. . . may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that: (a) The communication was unlawfully intercepted;.”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 4× “5 NRS 179.505 permits an aggrieved party in a criminal proceeding to move to suppress illegally intercepted recordings; it does not render such recordings per se inadmissible.”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 2× “5 NRS 179.505 permits an aggrieved party in a criminal proceeding to move to suppress illegally intercepted recordings; it does not render such recordings per se inadmissible.”
Jones v. United States (D. Nev. 2023).
· cites it 2× “23 § 2518(10)(a); NRS § 179.505(1). 24 The government correctly points out the defect in Jones’ argument—RCSU 25 detectives did not intercept Jones’ oral communications.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.505(1) — 3 cases
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017).
“5 NRS 179.505 permits an aggrieved party in a criminal proceeding to move to suppress illegally intercepted recordings; it does not render such recordings per se inadmissible.”
Jones v. United States (D. Nev. 2023).
“23 § 2518(10)(a); NRS § 179.505(1). 24 The government correctly points out the defect in Jones’ argument—RCSU 25 detectives did not intercept Jones’ oral communications.”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017).
“5 NRS 179.505 permits an aggrieved party in a criminal proceeding to move to suppress illegally intercepted recordings; it does not render such recordings per se inadmissible.”
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.