Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 200 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.650 (2026)

Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 200.650  Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

      (Added to NRS by 1957, 335; A 1973, 1749; 1989, 660)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: Lane v. Allstate Ins., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lane v. Allstate Ins., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 6× “620 with the language of NRS 200.650. In NRS 200.650, the legislature prohibited surreptitious intrusion upon in-person, private conversations by means of any listening device, but specifically added the language "unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the…”
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967). · cites it 2× “1966); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.650 (1963); N. Y. Pen.”
Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963). · cites it 2× “272, § 99; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.650 ; N. Y. Penal Law, § 738.”
Summers v. State, 718 P.2d 676 (Nev. 1986). · cites it 3× “Such an interception must, however, satisfy the authorization requirements set forth in NRS 200.650. 4 The recordings made from the October 5, 1982, “body bugging” of Autry are warrantless, electronic recordings of a communication from a “transmitter-type listening device”…”
Proj. Veritas v. Michael Schmidt, 72 F.4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2023). “1991) Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.650 ; Lane v. Allstate Ins.”
Lyudmyla Pyankovska v. Sean Abid, 65 F.4th 1067 (9th Cir. 2023). “The court acknowledged that “[b]ecause neither the child nor the mother consented to this recording, the father’s actions likely violated NRS 200.650, 2 Under the vicarious-consent doctrine, a parent with physical custody of a child may record conversations to which the child is…”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 28× “Because neither the child nor the mother consented to this recording, the father's actions likely violated NRS 200.650, which prohibits the surreptitious recording of nonconsenting individuals' private conversations.”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 14× “Because neither the child nor the mother consented to this recording, the father's actions likely violated NRS 200.650, which prohibits the surreptitious recording of nonconsenting individuals' private conversations.”
Elson v. Bowen, 436 P.2d 12 (Nev. 1967). · cites it 2× “) That statute, NRS 200.650, provides: "Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.”
Wall v. NSB East Bonanza (D. Nev. 2022). · cites it 7× “ECPA and NRS 200.650 3 Finally, Plaintiff appears to allege that her privacy rights were violated.”
Pyankovska v. Abid (D. Nev. 2025). · cites it 6× “16 The court ultimately ruled that the introduction of the recordings as independent evidence 17 18 would violate NRS 200.650, as defendant Abid’s procurement of such recordings did not meet the 19 requirements for the “vicarious consent doctrine.”
Sharpe (phillip) Vs. State, 2015 NV 32 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 8× “Eleven years earlier, the Nevada Legislature had enacted what is now NRS 200.650. At the time, NRS 200.650 prohibited a person from "surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record," i.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.