Nev. Rev. Stat. § 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

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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

Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2018–2025 · leading case: Glover-Armont v. Cargile

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Glover-Armont v. Cargile (2018) nevapp · 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) nev · 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) nev · 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) nev · 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 (2018) nevapp · 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 (2025) nvd · cites it 6× “The Grover-Armont court held that 16 NRS § 484B.700 precludes discretionary act immunity.”

Coleman v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (2021) nvd “2018), and NRS 484B.700 which is “in tension” with NRS 41.”

Tony Woolfolk v. St. Louis County (2024) moctapp “§ 60-6 ,114 (Nebraska); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484B.700 (Nevada); N.H.”

Lauren Neil v. St. Louis County (2024) moctapp “§ 60-6 ,114 (Nebraska); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484B.700 (Nevada); N.H.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484B.700(4) — 5 cases

Glover-Armont v. Cargile (2018) nevapp “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) nev “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) nev “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 (2018) nevapp “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.