Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 209 - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.419 (2026)

Interception of offender’s communications by telecommunications devices: Notice; exceptions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 209.419  Interception of offender’s communications by telecommunications devices: Notice; exceptions.

      1.  Communications made by an offender on any telephone or other telecommunications device in an institution or facility to any person outside the institution or facility may be intercepted if:

      (a) The interception is made by an authorized employee of the Department; and

      (b) Signs are posted near all telephones and other telecommunications devices in the institution or facility indicating that communications may be intercepted.

      2.  The Director shall provide notice or cause notice to be provided to both parties to a communication which is being intercepted pursuant to subsection 1, indicating that the communication is being intercepted. For the purposes of this section, a periodic sound which is heard by both parties during the communication shall be deemed notice to both parties that the communication is being intercepted.

      3.  The Director shall adopt regulations providing for an alternate method of communication for those communications by offenders which are confidential.

      4.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 239.0115, a communication made by an offender is confidential if it is made to:

      (a) A federal or state officer.

      (b) A local governmental officer who is at some time responsible for the custody of the offender.

      (c) An officer of any court.

      (d) An attorney who has been admitted to practice law in any state or is employed by a recognized agency providing legal assistance.

      (e) A reporter or editorial employee of any organization that reports general news including, but not limited to, any wire service or news service, newspaper, periodical, press association or radio or television station.

      (f) The Director.

      (g) Any other employee of the Department whom the Director may, by regulation, designate.

      5.  Reliance in good faith on a request or order from the Director or the Director’s authorized representative constitutes a complete defense to any action brought against any public utility intercepting or assisting in the interception of communications made by offenders pursuant to subsection 1.

      6.  As used in this section, “telecommunications device” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 209.417.

      (Added to NRS by 1983, 682; A 1985, 253; 2007, 2078; 2011, 2667)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · 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 2× “515, NRS 209.419 and NRS 704.195 relate to interception authorized by a judge or justice when requested by the attorney general or district attorneys for investigations by law enforcement agencies, interception of offenders' communications in jails or prisons, and interception…”
Fields (Linda) v. State (Nev. 2015). · cites it 2× “419(1)(b), that the use of the recordings should be prohibited in any criminal proceeding other than offenses directly involving jail security, and that the conversations were privileged. Initially, we note that the only objection made regarding this evidence during Fields's…”
John Witherow v. Lea Baker (9th Cir. 2021). “11(4) (2008), and consistent with Nevada law providing that attorney-client calls placed by inmates are confidential, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.419 (4) (2007). Because Witherow “can point to an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid…”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.419(1)(b): 1 case
Fields (Linda) v. State (Nev. 2015). “419(1)(b), that the use of the recordings should be prohibited in any criminal proceeding other than offenses directly involving jail security, and that the conversations were privileged. Initially, we note that the only objection made regarding this evidence during Fields'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.