NRS
484B.700 Privileges granted to driver of authorized emergency vehicle,
official vehicle of regulatory agency or vehicle escorting funeral procession;
application of privileges; limitation of privileges.
1. The driver of an authorized emergency
vehicle or an official vehicle of a regulatory agency, when responding to an
emergency call or when in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law
or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm, or a vehicle
escorting a funeral procession, may:
(a) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop
sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation.
(b) Exceed any speed limits so long as the driver
does not endanger life or property, except that a vehicle escorting a funeral
procession may not exceed the speed limit by more than 15 miles per hour to
overtake the procession and direct traffic at the next intersection.
(c) Disregard regulations governing direction of
movement or turning in specified directions. The driver of a vehicle escorting
a funeral procession may direct the movements of the vehicles in the procession
in a similar manner and may direct the movements of other vehicles.
2. The privileges granted in subsection 1
apply only when the vehicle is making use of:
(a) Audible and visual signals; or
(b) Visual signals only,
Ê as required
by law.
3. The driver of an authorized emergency
vehicle or an official vehicle of a regulatory agency may park or stand without
regard to the provisions of chapters 484A to
484E, inclusive, of NRS, if the driver makes
use of a warning lamp.
4. The provisions of this section do not
relieve the driver from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all
persons and do not protect the driver from the consequences of the driver’s
reckless disregard for the safety of others.
(Added to NRS by 1969,
1506; A 1985,
25, 944,
1040;
2001,
740)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.261)
Notes of Decisions
Glover-Armont v. Cargile, 426 P.3d 45 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 32× “However, that statute is in tension with NRS 484B.700, which allows a police officer to proceed past a red traffic signal in an emergency, but also requires that officer to utilize audio and visual or visual signals only, as required by law, and to drive with due regard for…”
Glover-armont Vs. Cargile, 2018 NV 49 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 54× “Glover-Armont conceded that Sergeant Cargile's decision to proceed against a red traffic signal in an emergency was discretionary However, she argued that his decision to do so without a siren and without due care as required by NRS 484B.700 was not discretionary. Additionally,…”
Glover-amont v. Cargile, 2018 NV 49 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 27× “Glover-Armont conceded that Sergeant Cargile's decision to proceed against a red traffic signal in an emergency was discretionary However, she argued that his decision to do so without a siren and without due care as required by NRS 484B.700 was not discretionary. Additionally,…”
Glover-armont Vs. Cargile, 2018 NV 49 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 27× “Glover-Armont conceded that Sergeant Cargile's decision to proceed against a red traffic signal in an emergency was discretionary However, she argued that his decision to do so without a siren and without due care as required by NRS 484B.700 was not discretionary. Additionally,…”
Glover-Armont v. Cargile (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 27× “Glover-Armont conceded that Sergeant Cargile's decision to proceed against a red traffic signal in an emergency was discretionary However, she argued that his decision to do so without a siren and without due care as required by NRS 484B.700 was not discretionary. Additionally,…”
Dey-Sarkar v. Adesina (D. Nev. 2025).
· cites it 6× “The Grover-Armont court held that 16 NRS § 484B.700 precludes discretionary act immunity.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484B.700(4) — 5 cases
Glover-Armont v. Cargile, 426 P.3d 45 (Nev. 2018).
“However, that statute is in tension with NRS 484B.700, which allows a police officer to proceed past a red traffic signal in an emergency, but also requires that officer to utilize audio and visual or visual signals only, as required by law, and to drive with due regard for…”
Glover-armont Vs. Cargile, 2018 NV 49 (Nev. 2018).
“Glover-Armont conceded that Sergeant Cargile's decision to proceed against a red traffic signal in an emergency was discretionary However, she argued that his decision to do so without a siren and without due care as required by NRS 484B.700 was not discretionary. Additionally,…”
Glover-amont v. Cargile, 2018 NV 49 (Nev. 2018).
“Glover-Armont conceded that Sergeant Cargile's decision to proceed against a red traffic signal in an emergency was discretionary However, she argued that his decision to do so without a siren and without due care as required by NRS 484B.700 was not discretionary. Additionally,…”
Glover-armont Vs. Cargile, 2018 NV 49 (Nev. 2018).
“Glover-Armont conceded that Sergeant Cargile's decision to proceed against a red traffic signal in an emergency was discretionary However, she argued that his decision to do so without a siren and without due care as required by NRS 484B.700 was not discretionary. Additionally,…”
Glover-Armont v. Cargile (Nev. 2018).
“Glover-Armont conceded that Sergeant Cargile's decision to proceed against a red traffic signal in an emergency was discretionary However, she argued that his decision to do so without a siren and without due care as required by NRS 484B.700 was not discretionary. Additionally,…”
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.