NRS
465.101 Detention and questioning of person suspected of violating
chapter; limitations on liability; posting of notice.
1. Any licensee, or the officers,
employees or agents of the licensee may question any person in the licensee’s
establishment suspected of violating any of the provisions of this chapter. No
licensee or any of the officers, employees or agents of the licensee is
criminally or civilly liable:
(a) On account of any such questioning; or
(b) For reporting to the Nevada Gaming Control
Board or law enforcement authorities the person suspected of the violation.
2. Any licensee or any of the officers,
employees or agents of the licensee who has probable cause for believing that
there has been a violation of this chapter in the licensee’s establishment by
any person may take that person into custody and detain that person in the
establishment in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time. Such
a taking into custody and detention does not render the licensee or the
officers, employees or agents of the licensee criminally or civilly liable
unless it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the taking into
custody and detention are unreasonable under all the circumstances.
3. No licensee or the officers, employees
or agents of the licensee are entitled to the immunity from liability provided
for in subsection 2 unless there is displayed in a conspicuous place in the
licensee’s establishment a notice in boldface type clearly legible and in
substantially this form:
Any gaming licensee, or any
of the officers, employees or agents of the gaming licensee who has probable
cause for believing that any person has violated any provision of chapter 465 of NRS prohibiting cheating in gaming
may detain that person in the establishment.
(Added to NRS by 1971,
580; A 1973,
446; 1981,
1295; 1983,
564)
Notes of Decisions
El Dorado Hotel, Inc. v. Brown, 691 P.2d 436 (Nev. 1984).
· cites it 12× “Third, NRS 465.101 provides a clear basis for *447 immunity to a licensee or its agents who question any patron suspected of violating Nevada's law against cheating.”
Vinci v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 984 P.2d 750 (Nev. 1999).
· cites it 3× “By granting partial summary judgment, the district court dismissed Vinci’s negligence claims arising from the gaming incident, 2 concluding that NRS 465.101 does not impose a duty upon the Sands or its employees to warn Vinci that accepting gaming chips without signing a marker…”
Hazelwood v. Harrah's, 862 P.2d 1189 (Nev. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Harrah’s argues that it is immune from civil liability for false imprisonment under NRS 465.101(1) which provides that any licensee or his officers may question any person in his establishment suspected of violating any of the gaming statutes without incurring civil liability.”
Jacobson v. State, 510 P.2d 856 (Nev. 1973).
· cites it 6× “Jacobson and Bruno contend that they possessed lawful authority to confine and detain Landucci by reason of NRS 465.101 and, also, by reason of a common law privilege to protect their property from theft.”
Nannis v. SB Gaming, LLC (D. Nev. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendants, the evidence could lead a 7 reasonable factfinder to conclude that Williams acted in self defense and that the defendants are 8 therefore not liable for battery.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 465.101(1) — 2 cases
Hazelwood v. Harrah's, 862 P.2d 1189 (Nev. 1993).
“Harrah’s argues that it is immune from civil liability for false imprisonment under NRS 465.101(1) which provides that any licensee or his officers may question any person in his establishment suspected of violating any of the gaming statutes without incurring civil liability.”
Vinci v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 984 P.2d 750 (Nev. 1999).
“By granting partial summary judgment, the district court dismissed Vinci’s negligence claims arising from the gaming incident, 2 concluding that NRS 465.101 does not impose a duty upon the Sands or its employees to warn Vinci that accepting gaming chips without signing a marker…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 465.101(2) — 1 case
Hazelwood v. Harrah's, 862 P.2d 1189 (Nev. 1993).
“Harrah’s argues that it is immune from civil liability for false imprisonment under NRS 465.101(1) which provides that any licensee or his officers may question any person in his establishment suspected of violating any of the gaming statutes without incurring civil liability.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 465.101(4) — 1 case
El Dorado Hotel, Inc. v. Brown, 691 P.2d 436 (Nev. 1984).
“Third, NRS 465.101 provides a clear basis for *447 immunity to a licensee or its agents who question any patron suspected of violating Nevada's law against cheating.”
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.