NRS
200.620 Interception and attempted interception of wire communication
prohibited; exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 5 and NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, 209.419 and 704.195, it is unlawful for any person to
intercept or attempt to intercept any wire communication unless:
(a) The interception or attempted interception is
made with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication; and
(b) An emergency situation exists and it is
impractical to obtain a court order as required by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, before the
interception, in which event the interception is subject to the requirements of
subsection 3. If the application for ratification is denied, any use or
disclosure of the information so intercepted is unlawful, and the person who
made the interception shall notify the sender and the receiver of the
communication that:
(1) The communication was intercepted; and
(2) Upon application to the court,
ratification of the interception was denied.
2. This section does not apply to any
person, or to the officers, employees or agents of any person, engaged in the
business of providing service and facilities for wire communication where the
interception or attempted interception is to construct, maintain, conduct or
operate the service or facilities of that person.
3. Any person who has made an interception
in an emergency situation as provided in paragraph (b) of subsection 1 shall,
within 72 hours of the interception, make a written application to a justice of
the Supreme Court or district judge for ratification of the interception. The
interception must not be ratified unless the applicant shows that:
(a) An emergency situation existed and it was impractical
to obtain a court order before the interception; and
(b) Except for the absence of a court order, the
interception met the requirements of NRS
179.410 to 179.515, inclusive.
4. NRS
200.610 to 200.690, inclusive, do
not prohibit the recording, and NRS 179.410
to 179.515, inclusive, do not prohibit
the reception in evidence, of conversations on wire communications installed in
the office of an official law enforcement or fire-fighting agency, or a public
utility, if the equipment used for the recording is installed in a facility for
wire communications or on a telephone with a number listed in a directory, on
which emergency calls or requests by a person for response by the law
enforcement or fire-fighting agency or public utility are likely to be
received. In addition, those sections do not prohibit the recording or
reception in evidence of conversations initiated by the law enforcement or
fire-fighting agency or public utility from such a facility or telephone in
connection with responding to the original call or request, if the agency or
public utility informs the other party that the conversation is being recorded.
5. The interception or attempted
interception of a wire communication is not unlawful under the circumstances
set forth in subsection 1 of NRS 179.463.
(Added to NRS by 1957,
334; A 1973,
1748; 1975,
747; 1983,
120, 681;
1989,
659; 2021,
1736)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case:
Lane v. Allstate Ins., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998).
Lane v. Allstate Ins., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998).
· cites it 57× “Allstate alleged that Lane illegally tape-recorded over 700 telephone conversations with two of the individual defendants and at least 180 witnesses in violation of NRS 200.620, and that Lane's tape-recording rendered it impermissible for him or any of the tape-recorded…”
McLellan v. State, 182 P.3d 106 (Nev. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Mclellan argues that the tape of the intercepted phone call was inadmissible because NRS 200.620 dictates that all parties to a communication must consent to the interception of wire or oral communication for it to be lawful, and therefore admissible at trial.”
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967).
· cites it 2× “§ 86-328 (1966); Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.620 , 200.630 (1963); N.”
Kathleen Bliss v. Corecivic, Inc., 978 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2020).
“, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620 (1) (“[I]t is unlawful for any person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire communication .”
State v. Reyes, 808 P.2d 544 (Nev. 1991).
· cites it 4× “See NRS 200.620; NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive.”
Edwards v. Juan Martinez, Inc. (D. Nev. 2021).
· cites it 18× “”49 Edwards concedes that he recorded the calls without 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 47 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620 (1). 48 Lane v.”
Ditech Fin., LLC Vs. Buckles, 2017 NV 64 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 17× “Certified question pursuant to NRAP 5 concerning the application of NRS 200.620. United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Gloria M.”
Ditech Fin., LLC Vs. Buckles, 2017 NV 64 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 17× “Certified question pursuant to NRAP 5 concerning the application of NRS 200.620. United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Gloria M.”
Baker v. Apttus Corp. (D. Nev. 2020).
· cites it 3× “690 because she was in Europe—not 10 Nevada—at the time and also that she did not possess the requisite mental state to violate 11 §200.620. (ECF No. 121 at 3–5.) Apttus has not responded to Baker’s MSJ.”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 2× “, Lane illegally recorded phone conversations in violation of NRS 200.620 to obtain evidence to support tort and contract claims against his former employer.”
Edwards v. Juan Martinez, Inc. (D. Nev. 2023).
· cites it 2× “88), arguing that Edwards 21 cannot succeed as a matter of law on his TCPA claim against the Martinezes, he 22 lacks evidence to prove his additional claims, his litigation conduct warrants 23 sanctions, and he is liable under NRS 200.620 for surreptitiously recording 24 Tamez’s…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620(1) — 3 cases
Lane v. Allstate Ins., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998).
“Allstate alleged that Lane illegally tape-recorded over 700 telephone conversations with two of the individual defendants and at least 180 witnesses in violation of NRS 200.620, and that Lane's tape-recording rendered it impermissible for him or any of the tape-recorded…”
Baker v. Apttus Corp. (D. Nev. 2020).
“690 because she was in Europe—not 10 Nevada—at the time and also that she did not possess the requisite mental state to violate 11 §200.620. (ECF No. 121 at 3–5.) Apttus has not responded to Baker’s MSJ.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620(1)(a) — 2 cases
Ditech Fin., LLC Vs. Buckles, 2017 NV 64 (Nev. 2017).
“Certified question pursuant to NRAP 5 concerning the application of NRS 200.620. United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Gloria M.”
Ditech Fin., LLC Vs. Buckles, 2017 NV 64 (Nev. 2017).
“Certified question pursuant to NRAP 5 concerning the application of NRS 200.620. United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Gloria M.”
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.