Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 205 - CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.4605 (2026)

Posting or displaying social security number of another person; penalties; civil action

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 205.4605  Posting or displaying social security number of another person; penalties; civil action.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not willfully and intentionally post or display in any public manner the social security number of another person unless the person is authorized or required to do so by specific federal or state law or regulation.

      2.  This section does not:

      (a) Prevent the use of a social security number for internal verification or administrative purposes.

      (b) Apply to documents that are recorded or required to be open to the public pursuant to federal or state law or regulation.

      3.  Unless a greater penalty is provided by specific statute, a person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

      4.  A person whose social security number has been willfully and intentionally posted or displayed in violation of this section may bring a civil cause of action against the person who commits such a violation. The court may award actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the person whose social security number has been willfully and intentionally posted or displayed in violation of this section.

      5.  As used in this section:

      (a) “Person” includes a government, governmental agency or political subdivision of a government.

      (b) “Post or display in any public manner” means to communicate or otherwise make available to the general public. The term includes, without limitation:

             (1) Printing the social security number of another person on any card required for the other person to access products or services provided by the person or entity printing the social security number.

             (2) Requiring another person to transmit his or her social security number over the Internet, unless the connection is secure or the social security number is encrypted.

             (3) Requiring another person to use his or her social security number to access an Internet website, unless a password or unique personal identification number or other authentication device is also required to access the Internet website.

             (4) Printing the social security number of another person on any material that is mailed to the person, if the social security number is visible to the public.

      (Added to NRS by 2011, 2608)

UNLAWFUL ACTS REGARDING PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2018–2018 · leading case: State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of State, 431 P.3d 47 (Nev. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of State, 431 P.3d 47 (Nev. 2018). “See NRS 205.4605(1). We recognize that the majority in Artiga-Morales declined to create a rule, in part because of that case's "limited record and arguments" on this issue.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (ojeda (francisco)), 2018 NV 94 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 2× “See NRS 205.4605(1). 4 We recognize that the majority in Artiga-Morales declined to create a rule, in part because of that case's "limited record and arguments" on this issue.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (ojeda (francisco)), 2018 NV 94 (Nev. 2018). “See NRS 205.4605(1). 4 We recognize that the majority in Artiga-Morales declined to create a rule, in part because of that case's "limited record and arguments" on this issue.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.4605(1) — 3 cases
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of State, 431 P.3d 47 (Nev. 2018). “See NRS 205.4605(1). We recognize that the majority in Artiga-Morales declined to create a rule, in part because of that case's "limited record and arguments" on this issue.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (ojeda (francisco)), 2018 NV 94 (Nev. 2018). “See NRS 205.4605(1). 4 We recognize that the majority in Artiga-Morales declined to create a rule, in part because of that case's "limited record and arguments" on this issue.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (ojeda (francisco)), 2018 NV 94 (Nev. 2018). “See NRS 205.4605(1). 4 We recognize that the majority in Artiga-Morales declined to create a rule, in part because of that case's "limited record and arguments" on this issue.”
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.