Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 289 - PEACE OFFICERS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 289.080 (2026)

Right to presence and assistance of representatives at interview, interrogation or hearing relating to investigation; confidential information; disclosure; record of interview, interrogation or hearing; right of subject of investigation to notice of intent to recommend punitive action, to submit response to such recommendation and to review and copy investigation file upon appeal

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 289.080  Right to presence and assistance of representatives at interview, interrogation or hearing relating to investigation; confidential information; disclosure; record of interview, interrogation or hearing; right of subject of investigation to notice of intent to recommend punitive action, to submit response to such recommendation and to review and copy investigation file upon appeal.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, a peace officer who is the subject of an investigation conducted pursuant to NRS 289.057 may upon request have two representatives of the peace officer’s choosing present with the peace officer during any phase of an interrogation or hearing relating to the investigation, including, without limitation, a lawyer, a representative of a labor union or another peace officer.

      2.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, a peace officer who is a witness in an investigation conducted pursuant to NRS 289.057 may upon request have two representatives of the peace officer’s choosing present with the peace officer during an interview relating to the investigation, including, without limitation, a lawyer, a representative of a labor union or another peace officer. The presence of the second representative must not create an undue delay in either the scheduling or conducting of the interview.

      3.  A representative of a peace officer must assist the peace officer during the interview, interrogation or hearing.

      4.  The law enforcement agency conducting the interview, interrogation or hearing shall allow a representative of the peace officer to explain an answer provided by the peace officer or refute a negative implication which results from questioning of the peace officer but may require such explanation to be provided after the agency has concluded its initial questioning of the peace officer.

      5.  A representative must not otherwise be connected to, or the subject of, the same investigation.

      6.  Any information that a representative obtains from the peace officer who is a witness concerning the investigation is confidential and must not be disclosed.

      7.  Any information that a representative obtains from the peace officer who is the subject of the investigation is confidential and must not be disclosed except upon the:

      (a) Request of the peace officer; or

      (b) Lawful order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

Ê A law enforcement agency shall not take punitive action against a representative for the representative’s failure or refusal to disclose such information.

      8.  The peace officer, any representative of the peace officer or the law enforcement agency may make a stenographic, digital or magnetic record of the interview, interrogation or hearing. If the agency records the proceedings, the agency shall at the peace officer’s request and expense provide a copy of the:

      (a) Stenographic transcript of the proceedings; or

      (b) Recording on the digital or magnetic tape.

      9.  After the conclusion of the investigation, if a law enforcement agency intends to recommend that punitive action be imposed against the peace officer who was the subject of the investigation, the law enforcement agency must notify the peace officer of such fact and give the peace officer or any representative of the peace officer a reasonable opportunity to inspect any evidence in the possession of the law enforcement agency and submit a response. The law enforcement agency must consider any such response before making a recommendation to impose punitive action against the peace officer. If the law enforcement agency recommends punitive action be imposed against the peace officer and the peace officer appeals the recommendation to impose punitive action, the peace officer or any representative of the peace officer may review and copy the entire file concerning the internal investigation, including, without limitation, any evidence, recordings, notes, transcripts of interviews and documents contained in the file.

      (Added to NRS by 1983, 2098; A 1991, 647; 1993, 2380; 2005, 623; 2011, 1752; 2019, 2662; 2020, 32nd Special Session, 77)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 302 P.3d 1108 (Nev. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 302 P.3d 1108 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 13× “NRS 289.080 did not impose a duty on the PPA to provide representation to Bisch.”
Jaeger v. State, 948 P.2d 1185 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 8× “010, generally (the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights), and NRS 289.080, specifically. NRS 289.080(1) provides that a peace officer has a right to a lawyer or other representative during any type of internal investigatory hearing.”
LVPPA v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 59 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 32× “Travers then exercised his NRS 289.080 right to choose an attorney to represent him in the investigation, selected an attorney covered by his FOP Plan,' and did not elect to use a representative from LVPPA.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24 (Nev. 2026). · cites it 17× “Relevant here, the NPRA excepts from its disclosure requirements documents covered by NRS 289.080, which makes confidential information relating to internal investigations of peace officers for misconduct.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. (Nev. 2026). · cites it 16× “Relevant here, the NPRA excepts from its disclosure requirements documents covered by NRS 289.080, which makes confidential information relating to internal investigations of peace officers for misconduct.”
Knickmeyer v. State of Nevada, 2017 NV 84 (Nev. 2017). “3d 350 , 353 3 Knickmeyer also mentions NRS 289.080 in his brief as a statute that applies to him, but doesn't allege that 289.”
Knickmeyer Vs. State, Ex. Rel. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2017 NV 84 (Nev. 2017). “3d 350 , 353 3 Knickmeyer also mentions NRS 289.080 in his brief as a statute that applies to him, but doesn't allege that 289.”
Knickmeyer Vs. State, Ex. Rel. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2017 NV 84 (Nev. 2017). “3d 350 , 353 3 Knickmeyer also mentions NRS 289.080 in his brief as a statute that applies to him, but doesn't allege that 289.”
Knickmeyer v. State of Nevada (Nev. 2017). “3d 350 , 353 3 Knickmeyer also mentions NRS 289.080 in his brief as a statute that applies to him, but doesn't allege that 289.”
Erwine v. Churchill Cnty. (D. Nev. 2021). “16 § 289.080. However, these procedural rights are not ends in themselves protected by the due 17 process clauses.”
Martin v. Clark Cnty. (D. Nev. 2021). “The 22 1 Daniel argues that his representatives during interrogations were interfered with in violation of 23 Nevada Revised Statutes § 289.080(3). Daniel has not raised this claim in his second amended complaint, so I do not address it.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 289.080(1) — 4 cases
Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 302 P.3d 1108 (Nev. 2013). “NRS 289.080 did not impose a duty on the PPA to provide representation to Bisch.”
Jaeger v. State, 948 P.2d 1185 (Nev. 1997). “010, generally (the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights), and NRS 289.080, specifically. NRS 289.080(1) provides that a peace officer has a right to a lawyer or other representative during any type of internal investigatory hearing.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24 (Nev. 2026). “Relevant here, the NPRA excepts from its disclosure requirements documents covered by NRS 289.080, which makes confidential information relating to internal investigations of peace officers for misconduct.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. (Nev. 2026). “Relevant here, the NPRA excepts from its disclosure requirements documents covered by NRS 289.080, which makes confidential information relating to internal investigations of peace officers for misconduct.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 289.080(2) — 1 case
LVPPA v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 59 (Nev. 2022). “Travers then exercised his NRS 289.080 right to choose an attorney to represent him in the investigation, selected an attorney covered by his FOP Plan,' and did not elect to use a representative from LVPPA.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 289.080(3) — 4 cases
Jaeger v. State, 948 P.2d 1185 (Nev. 1997). “010, generally (the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights), and NRS 289.080, specifically. NRS 289.080(1) provides that a peace officer has a right to a lawyer or other representative during any type of internal investigatory hearing.”
Martin v. Clark Cnty. (D. Nev. 2021). “The 22 1 Daniel argues that his representatives during interrogations were interfered with in violation of 23 Nevada Revised Statutes § 289.080(3). Daniel has not raised this claim in his second amended complaint, so I do not address it.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24 (Nev. 2026). “Relevant here, the NPRA excepts from its disclosure requirements documents covered by NRS 289.080, which makes confidential information relating to internal investigations of peace officers for misconduct.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. (Nev. 2026). “Relevant here, the NPRA excepts from its disclosure requirements documents covered by NRS 289.080, which makes confidential information relating to internal investigations of peace officers for misconduct.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 289.080(5) — 1 case
LVPPA v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 59 (Nev. 2022). “Travers then exercised his NRS 289.080 right to choose an attorney to represent him in the investigation, selected an attorney covered by his FOP Plan,' and did not elect to use a representative from LVPPA.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 289.080(6) — 2 cases
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24 (Nev. 2026). “Relevant here, the NPRA excepts from its disclosure requirements documents covered by NRS 289.080, which makes confidential information relating to internal investigations of peace officers for misconduct.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. (Nev. 2026). “Relevant here, the NPRA excepts from its disclosure requirements documents covered by NRS 289.080, which makes confidential information relating to internal investigations of peace officers for misconduct.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 289.080(9) — 2 cases
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24 (Nev. 2026). “Relevant here, the NPRA excepts from its disclosure requirements documents covered by NRS 289.080, which makes confidential information relating to internal investigations of peace officers for misconduct.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. (Nev. 2026). “Relevant here, the NPRA excepts from its disclosure requirements documents covered by NRS 289.080, which makes confidential information relating to internal investigations of peace officers for misconduct.”
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.