EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsNevada Laws flagNevada Laws
Nevada flag

Nevada

Nevada Recording Laws (2026): All-Party for Calls, One-Party in Person

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed September 23, 202612 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 21 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Nevada Recording Laws (2026): All-Party for Calls, One-Party in Person

Nevada is a hybrid recording state, counted among the 13 all-party consent states because of its phone-call rule: in-person conversations require only one-party consent under NRS 200.650, but telephone calls require all-party consent under NRS 200.620 as construed by the Nevada Supreme Court in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), a rule that also applies to cellphone calls and text messages on the statutory definition of wire communication. Recording a phone call without every participant's consent is a Category D felony, punishable by 1 to 4 years in state prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

Nevada recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent rule for in-person conversationsOne-party (NRS 200.650)
Consent rule for telephone calls (landline and cellular)All-party (NRS 200.620 per Lane v. Allstate 1998)
Consent rule for text messagesAll-party on the text of NRS 200.610(2), which defines wire communication to include writing sent by wire or cable; no Nevada decision on point
Consent rule for VoIP and video calls (Zoom, Teams, FaceTime, Meet)Undecided in Nevada; treat as all-party and announce the recording
Criminal penaltyCategory D felony: 1-4 years, up to $5,000 fine (NRS 200.690, NRS 193.130)
Civil damages$100/day or $1,000 minimum (whichever is greater), plus actual, punitive, and attorney fees (NRS 200.690)
Hidden cameras / voyeurismNRS 200.604: gross misdemeanor (1st offense), Category E felony (2nd+)
Recording police in publicProtected by NRS 171.1233 and Ninth Circuit First Amendment precedent

For in-depth treatment by medium and context, see the Nevada recording laws in depth section below.

Recording in-person conversations in Nevada

NRS 200.650 prohibits surreptitious listening to, monitoring, or recording of a private conversation by an outside person unless authorized by one of the persons engaging in the conversation. The one-party authorization carve-out is what makes Nevada a one-party state for face-to-face exchanges: a participant's own consent satisfies the statute.

The statute reaches only "private conversations." A loud exchange in a public lobby where others can clearly overhear lacks the reasonable expectation of privacy that the statute protects. Courts look at location, whether doors were closed, and the steps speakers took to keep the conversation private.

The statute's outside-person framing is the other key feature. A participant is never an "outside person," so a Nevada resident may lawfully record a workplace meeting, a family discussion, or an HR performance review they are part of, without telling anyone else. A non-participant who plants a recording device and leaves the room is squarely within NRS 200.650 and faces the same Category D felony penalty.

Nevada over-the-shoulder crop of two people seated across a small table mid-conversation, seen from behind one shoulder so no faces visible

Recording phone calls in Nevada

Telephone recording is governed by NRS 200.620, which makes it unlawful to intercept a "wire communication" except in narrow circumstances. NRS 200.610(2) defines a wire communication as the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds by wire, cable, or other similar connection between the points of origin and reception. The statute's text reads like a one-party rule, but the Nevada Supreme Court construed it differently in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998).

Lane was a fractured decision producing four separate opinions, on direct appeal from a Nevada state district court, not (as sometimes assumed) a certified federal question. The majority held that NRS 200.620 requires every party's consent before a telephone call may be recorded. The reasoning was structural: because the Legislature wrote an explicit one-party authorization into NRS 200.650 for in-person conversations, the absence of that language in NRS 200.620 showed the Legislature intended a stricter rule for phone calls. Lane has not been overruled, and NRS 200.620 has not been amended to disturb that construction.

How far that rule reaches beyond a landline call is a question no Nevada appellate court has answered. Lane itself involved recorded telephone conversations. Applying it to cellphone calls and text messages rests on the wording of NRS 200.610(2), which expressly covers the transmission of "writing" by wire, cable, or other similar connection, and that is the reading a Nevada court is most likely to adopt. Internet-carried services such as VoIP audio and video-conference calls (Zoom, Teams, FaceTime, Google Meet) are a further step no Nevada court has taken and no Nevada statute addresses. Because a violation is a Category D felony, the prudent course is to treat all of them as all-party.

The practical upshot turns on where the recording itself takes place, not merely where the Nevada participant is located. In Ditech Financial LLC v. Buckles, 133 Nev. 493, 401 P.3d 215 (2017), answering a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 200.620 does not apply extraterritorially because "interceptions and recordings occur where made." A Nevada resident who records a call on equipment located in Nevada needs every party's consent, even if the other party is calling from a one-party state. A caller located outside Nevada who records on out-of-state equipment is governed by that state's law instead, even when the person on the other end is in Nevada. The safest approach for anyone recording from inside Nevada is to announce the recording at call open before substantive discussion begins.

Nevada is one of the stricter states for telephone recording. For full details on interstate call rules and employer compliance, see the Nevada Phone Call Recording Laws sub-page.

Because Nevada treats phone calls and in-person conversations differently, our recording consent checker lets you choose the medium and the other party's state.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

NRS 200.604 prohibits the knowing and intentional capture of an image of a person's private area without consent in circumstances where the depicted person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A first offense is a gross misdemeanor under NRS 193.140 (up to 364 days in jail, up to $2,000 fine). A second or subsequent offense is a Category E felony under NRS 193.130.

Video recording in places where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists, such as a public-facing porch or driveway, falls outside NRS 200.604 as long as no private area is captured. A Ring or Nest doorbell camera pointed at the front walkway is generally lawful for its video track. The audio track is a separate matter: if the microphone captures a phone call by an approaching visitor, that is interception of a wire communication under NRS 200.620 (all-party consent, per Lane), not a simple video-capture issue. Disabling audio on outdoor cameras or posting clear notice of audio recording is the straightforward compliance fix.

A nanny cam in a living room or nursery is generally lawful. Placing a camera in a bathroom, guest bedroom, or any space where a nanny or domestic worker has a reasonable expectation of privacy and capturing their private area is a gross misdemeanor under NRS 200.604 on the first offense.

For full coverage of voyeurism, security-camera rules, and video recording, see the Nevada Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and Nevada Security Camera Laws sub-pages.

Nevada a small audio recorder and over-ear headphones resting on a stack of legal documents whose text is blurred out of focus

Penalties for illegal recording in Nevada

NRS 200.690 is the single penalty provision covering the entire wire, oral, and listening-device interception cluster (NRS 200.620 through NRS 200.650).

Criminal penalty:

ElementAmount
ClassificationCategory D felony (NRS 193.130)
Imprisonment1 to 4 years in Nevada State Prison
FineUp to $5,000
Mens reaWillful and knowing

Civil remedies (NRS 200.690):

RemedyAmount
Liquidated damages$100 per day of violation or $1,000 minimum, whichever is greater
Actual damagesWhatever losses the plaintiff can prove
Punitive damagesAvailable on clear-and-convincing showing of oppression, fraud, or malice
Attorney fees and costsReasonable fees and court costs

A plaintiff pleads the greater of actual or liquidated damages. The federal ECPA civil cause under 18 U.S.C. section 2520 layers on top with statutory damages of $100 per day or $10,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages and attorney fees. A Nevada plaintiff may plead both causes simultaneously.

The common-law intrusion upon seclusion tort, anchored in PETA v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd., 111 Nev. 615, 895 P.2d 1269 (1995), operates alongside the statutory cause. NRS 42.005 supplies punitive damages on a clear-and-convincing showing of oppression, fraud, or malice.

The limitations period is three years for liabilities created by statute under NRS 11.190(3) and two years for personal injury under NRS 11.190(4)(e). Plaintiffs should plead within the shorter window when authority is unclear.

Nevada law library reading room with brass lamp and books in soft focus

Recording the police in Nevada

Nevada residents have an express statutory right and a controlling federal First Amendment right to record law enforcement in public.

NRS 171.1233, enacted in 2017, provides that any person not under arrest or in police custody may record law enforcement activity and maintain custody and control of the recording and the equipment used. A person under arrest does not, by that status alone, forfeit the right to have recordings and equipment maintained and returned. The statute does not protect interference with or obstruction of law enforcement activity.

Nevada is in the Ninth Circuit. In Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), a man videotaping a public protest march, including the police officers working it, sued after an officer allegedly smashed his camera into his face; the Ninth Circuit held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the officer tried to prevent or dissuade him from exercising his "First Amendment right to film matters of public interest," and sent that claim to trial. In Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit cited Fordyce for the rule that the First Amendment right to photograph and record matters of public interest "includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places."

A bystander who films from a safe distance without obstructing the encounter is protected by both NRS 171.1233 and the Fordyce/Askins First Amendment line. NRS 171.1233 is a record-the-police statute only; Nevada courtroom recording is governed separately by Nevada Supreme Court Rules and requires advance permission from the presiding judge.

For full analysis, see Nevada Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Nevada

Body-worn cameras (NRS 289.830)

NRS 289.830 requires Nevada law enforcement agencies employing uniformed officers in regular public contact to require officers to wear a portable event recording device on duty. Officers must activate the device at the initiation of any law-enforcement or investigative encounter and on calls for service, and may not deactivate until the encounter concludes. Records are public records subject to NRS Chapter 239 disclosure and redaction rules. This statute imposes obligations on agencies and officers, not on citizens.

Workplace recording and NLRB overlay

In-person workplace conversations follow NRS 200.650 (one-party). Workplace phone calls follow NRS 200.620 (all-party). Private-sector employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act must evaluate any no-recording handbook policy under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023): a rule is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable employee could read it as chilling Section 7 protected concerted activity. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) was a housekeeping rescission of prior memoranda and did not reinstate the Boeing work-rule framework; Stericycle remains controlling. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) declared surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se 8(a)(5)/8(b)(3) violation, narrowly scoped to formal bargaining sessions.

For more, see Nevada Workplace Recording Laws.

AI and deepfake statutes (AB 73, SB 213, SB 263)

Nevada's 83rd Legislature enacted three AI statutes in 2025. AB 73 (effective January 1, 2026) requires clear and conspicuous disclosure on election-related communications containing AI-altered images, video, or audio; enforcement is via injunctive relief by the depicted candidate. SB 213 (effective October 1, 2025) amends NRS 200.780 to expressly reach AI-generated and digitally altered synthetic intimate imagery, closing the prior gap for wholly fabricated deepfakes. SB 263 (effective October 1, 2025) added computer-generated child sexual abuse material to NRS 200.725 (preparing, advertising, or distributing) and NRS 200.730 (possession). Distributing it is a first-offense Category B felony (1 to 15 years, up to $15,000 fine) and a second-or-subsequent Category A felony (10 years to life with possibility of parole, up to $15,000 fine) under NRS 200.725. Possessing it is a first-offense Category B felony (1 to 6 years, up to $5,000 fine) and a second-or-subsequent Category A felony (1 year to life with possibility of parole, up to $5,000 fine) under NRS 200.730.

NRS 200.780 makes unlawful dissemination of an intimate image, including an AI-generated or digitally altered image that a reasonable person would believe is a real depiction of the person, a category D felony. NRS 200.785 separately criminalizes sextortion (demands for payment in exchange for not distributing an intimate image). If someone is making that kind of demand of you now, our guide to sextortion explains why not to pay, how to keep the messages as evidence, and where to report the threat. No Nevada statute creating an express separate civil cause of action for non-consensual intimate imagery was located; a victim may still have recourse through the general civil remedies described above (NRS 200.690, the common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion tort) depending on the facts.

Federal overlay

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2522, sets a one-party consent floor but does not preempt stricter state law; Nevada's all-party phone rule controls for any Nevada participant. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (in force) holds that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" under TCPA. FCC 24-24 (one-to-one consent rule) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, mandate April 30, 2025. 47 CFR 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), criminalizes publication of non-consensual intimate visual depictions including deepfakes; platforms must implement a 48-hour notice-and-takedown procedure by May 19, 2026.

three smartphones around a blank document on a wooden desk

  • October 1, 2025: Nevada SB 213 (NRS 200.780 expanded to AI-generated synthetic intimate imagery) and SB 263 (AI-generated CSAM added to child pornography definition) both took effect.
  • January 1, 2026: Nevada AB 73 (election deepfake disclosure mandate) took effect.
  • May 19, 2026: TAKE IT DOWN Act platform notice-and-takedown compliance deadline.
  • April 30, 2025: FCC 24-24 one-to-one consent rule vacated by Eleventh Circuit mandate.
  • June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 declared surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se unfair labor practice.

Nevada recording laws in depth

Want to know more? Each sub-page covers a specific Nevada recording-law context in greater depth than this hub.

By type of recording:

By place or relationship:

More Nevada laws

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed Nevada attorney.

More Nevada Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Nevada a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?

Nevada is a hybrid consent state. In-person oral conversations follow one-party consent under NRS 200.650: a participant may record without informing anyone else. Telephone calls require all-party consent under NRS 200.620 per Lane v. Allstate (1998), and the same rule is generally applied to cellphone calls and text messages on the text of NRS 200.610(2). Recording a phone call without every participant's consent is a Category D felony.

Can I record a phone call in Nevada without telling the other person?

No. NRS 200.620, as construed by the Nevada Supreme Court in Lane v. Allstate (1998), requires the consent of every party before a phone call may be recorded. The rule squarely covers landline calls, and the text of NRS 200.610(2) supports applying it to cellphone calls and text messages as well. Whether it reaches VoIP audio or video-conference calls is untested in Nevada, so treat those as all-party too. Secretly recording a call is a Category D felony punishable by 1 to 4 years in state prison.

Why does Nevada require all-party consent for phone calls but only one-party for in-person conversations?

Because the Nevada Supreme Court in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), construed NRS 200.620 to require all-party consent in a fractured decision that produced four separate opinions. The lead opinion reasoned that because the Legislature wrote an explicit one-party rule into NRS 200.650 for in-person conversations, the absence of that language in NRS 200.620 showed the Legislature treated phone recording as a greater privacy intrusion.

Does Nevada's all-party phone rule apply to cellphones and text messages?

Almost certainly, though no Nevada appellate court has ruled on it. NRS 200.610(2) defines a wire communication as the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds by wire, cable, or other similar connection, and cellphone calls and text messages travel by wire for part of their route. Lane v. Allstate construed NRS 200.620 to require all-party consent for telephone recording, and nothing in the statute limits that holding to landlines. Treat cellphone calls and texts as all-party.

Is recording someone without consent a felony in Nevada?

Yes, for a willful and knowing violation. Illegally recording a phone call (NRS 200.620) or acting as an outside person surreptitiously recording a private in-person conversation (NRS 200.650) is a Category D felony under NRS 200.690 and NRS 193.130: 1 to 4 years in state prison and up to $5,000 fine. Recording your own face-to-face conversation is not a felony because your participation satisfies NRS 200.650.

What can I sue for if someone illegally recorded me in Nevada?

Under NRS 200.690 you may recover the greater of actual damages or liquidated damages ($100 per day of violation, minimum $1,000), plus punitive damages (on a clear-and-convincing showing of oppression, fraud, or malice) and reasonable attorney fees. The federal ECPA civil cause under 18 U.S.C. section 2520 adds statutory damages of $100 per day or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.

Are Ring doorbell cameras and nanny cams legal in Nevada?

Generally yes for the outward-facing video on a public-area porch. NRS 200.604 targets capture of a person's private area in a private place. The audio track is a separate issue: doorbell-camera audio that captures a visitor's active phone call is interception of a wire communication under NRS 200.620 and requires all-party consent. Disabling audio or posting clear notice of recording is the simplest fix.

Can I record a police officer in Nevada?

Yes. NRS 171.1233 (enacted 2017) expressly authorizes any person not under arrest to record law enforcement activity and maintain custody of the recording. The Ninth Circuit's First Amendment line under Fordyce v. City of Seattle (1995) and Askins v. DHS (2018) provides parallel federal protection. Film from a safe distance without obstructing the encounter. NRS 171.1233 does not cover courtroom recording, which requires advance judicial permission.

Updates

Corrected the description of Fordyce v. City of Seattle to what the Ninth Circuit actually decided and attributed the right to record police in public to Askins v. DHS, which states it.

Corrected the page's treatment of Sharpe v. State, which is a court-authorized wiretap decision under NRS 179.455 and does not address private-party consent, and clarified that Nevada's all-party rule for cellphone calls, text messages, VoIP and video calls rests on the text of NRS 200.610(2) rather than on any Nevada court decision.

Removed a fabricated Nevada statute citation (NRS 200.788, which does not exist) from the intimate-imagery section, split the AI-generated child sexual abuse material penalty figures into their correct possession (NRS 200.730) and distribution (NRS 200.725) tracks instead of one overstated blanket minimum, and corrected the description of the Nevada Supreme Court's 1998 Lane v. Allstate ruling from a '3-2 decision' to the fractured, four-opinion decision it actually was.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Restructured page into scannable sections following the recording-redo spec: condensed prose to remove repetition, added at-a-glance table, separated in-person and phone-call sections, condensed special topics (body-worn cameras, workplace/NLRB, AI statutes, federal overlay) into tight subsections, added Nevada recording laws in-depth index linking all 12 sub-pages, refreshed FAQ (8 questions), updated UpdatesLog. Re-checked Lane v. Allstate (a fractured decision producing four separate opinions, all-party phone), NRS 171.1233 text, Category D felony 1-4 years/$5,000, NRS 200.604 gross misdemeanor/Category E, Nevada 2025 AI trio (AB 73/SB 213/SB 263) and TAKE IT DOWN Act.

Refreshed for 2026 with a hybrid-forward framework. Anchored NRS 200.620 (wire and phone, all-party per Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), a 3-2 Nevada Supreme Court decision construing the facially-one-party statutory text as all-party on legislative-intent reasoning) and NRS 200.650 (in-person oral conversations, one-party). Added Sharpe v. State, 350 P.3d 388 (Nev. 2015), as the modern controlling authority extending the all-party phone rule to cellphone calls and text messages. Added the verified Nevada 2025 AI trio: AB 73 (election deepfake disclosure mandate, effective January 1, 2026), SB 213 (NRS 200.780 expansion to AI-generated synthetic intimate imagery, effective October 1, 2025), and SB 263 (AI-generated child sexual abuse material, effective October 1, 2025). Documented NRS 200.788 as the express Nevada civil cause of action for non-consensual intimate imagery, replacing the prior baseline reference to NRS 41.1395 (which is the elder and vulnerable-adult abuse statute, not an NCII cause). Reframed NRS 171.1233 as the express Nevada statutory right to record law enforcement activity (enacted in 2017), parallel to the Ninth Circuit First Amendment line under Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018); courtroom recording is governed separately by Nevada Supreme Court Rules. Reframed NLRB GC 25-05 (February 14, 2025, Acting GC William B. Cowen) as a housekeeping rescission of prior General Counsel memoranda, not a Boeing-era reinstatement; Stericycle, 372 NLRB No. 113 (August 2, 2023), remains controlling Board law on workplace no-recording rules. Updated the federal overlay: FCC 24-17 (AI-voice robocalls under TCPA) remains in force, FCC 24-24 (one-to-one consent rule) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, with the mandate issued April 30, 2025, and 47 CFR 64.501 was removed and reserved effective November 20, 2017. Added the TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), with the platform notice-and-takedown compliance deadline arriving May 19, 2026. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with leg.state.nv.us for Nevada Revised Statutes, nvcourts.gov for Nevada Supreme Court materials, and uscode.house.gov for federal statutes.

Refreshed for 2026 with a hybrid-forward framework. Anchored NRS 200.620 (wire and phone, all-party per Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), a fractured Nevada Supreme Court decision producing four separate opinions, construing the facially-one-party statutory text as all-party on legislative-intent reasoning) and NRS 200.650 (in-person oral conversations, one-party). Added the verified Nevada 2025 AI trio: AB 73 (election deepfake disclosure mandate, effective January 1, 2026), SB 213 (NRS 200.780 expansion to AI-generated synthetic intimate imagery, effective October 1, 2025), and SB 263 (AI-generated child sexual abuse material, effective October 1, 2025). Documented NRS 200.780 (as later amended by SB 213 in 2025) as the criminal dissemination statute reaching AI-generated synthetic intimate imagery; no Nevada statute creating a separate civil cause of action for this conduct was confirmed. Reframed NRS 171.1233 as the express Nevada statutory right to record law enforcement activity (enacted in 2017). Reframed NLRB GC 25-05 as a housekeeping rescission, not a Boeing reinstatement; Stericycle remains controlling. Added TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), with platform compliance deadline May 19, 2026. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with leg.state.nv.us for Nevada Revised Statutes.

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 FAQs

Sources and References

  1. leg.state.nv.us.gov
  2. leg.state.nv.us.gov
  3. leg.state.nv.us.gov
  4. leg.state.nv.us.gov
  5. leg.state.nv.us.gov
  6. leg.state.nv.us.gov
  7. nvcourts.gov.gov
  8. leg.state.nv.us.gov
  9. leg.state.nv.us.gov
  10. leg.state.nv.us.gov
  11. uscode.house.gov.gov
  12. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov.gov
  13. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov.gov
  14. docs.fcc.gov.gov
  15. media.ca11.uscourts.gov.gov
  16. nlrb.gov.gov
  17. nlrb.gov.gov
  18. nlrb.gov.gov
  19. congress.gov.gov
  20. ftc.gov.gov
  21. leg.state.nv.us.gov
  22. Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998) (construing NRS 200.620 to require all-party consent to record a telephone call)(courtlistener.com)
  23. NRS 200.610 - Definitions (subsection 2 defines "wire communication")(leg.state.nv.us)
Share: