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

Nevada has one rule for face-to-face conversations and a stricter one for phone calls. An in-person conversation needs only one-party consent, meaning the consent of one person taking part in it, under section 200.650 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 200.650). A telephone call needs all-party consent, meaning every person on the call must agree to the recording. That phone-call rule comes from NRS 200.620, as the Nevada Supreme Court read it in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1998) and restated it in Ditech Financial LLC v. Buckles (2017).

Because of that rule, Nevada counts as an all-party consent state. This site counts a state as all-party when it requires every party's consent for at least one major kind of conversation, phone calls or in-person conversations.

No Nevada court has decided whether that rule reaches cellphone, internet or video calls, so the safe course is to get everyone's consent before recording any call. 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

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 (secret) listening to, monitoring, or recording of a private conversation by an outside person unless authorized by one of the persons engaging in the conversation. That exception, which lets one participant authorize the recording, 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 other key feature is that the statute is aimed at an outside person. 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 as someone who illegally records a phone call.

Recording phone calls in Nevada

Recording a telephone call falls under the phone law, NRS 200.620. It 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. That word "wire" matters for cellphones, as explained below.

The phone law allows interception with one party's consent only when that consent is paired with an emergency that makes a court order impractical. Even then, the person who intercepted must apply to a judge for ratification, an approval after the fact, within 72 hours. Outside that emergency route, one party's consent alone is not enough under the statute's text.

In Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), the Nevada Supreme Court read the phone law as barring a party from recording a call without everyone's consent. Lane was a fractured decision: the court produced four separate opinions. Three of the five justices read NRS 200.620 to require every party's consent before a telephone call may be recorded, unless a court approves it.

The case reached the court on direct appeal from a Nevada state district court, meaning a party that lost there asked the higher court to review the district court's decision. It was not (as sometimes assumed) a certified federal question, meaning a question sent to the Nevada Supreme Court by a federal court, the way Ditech later was.

The lead opinion relied on the contrast with the in-person law, NRS 200.650, which expressly lets one participant authorize recording an in-person conversation. It also relied on the Legislature's choice not to copy the federal one-party exception in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), and on the Legislature's 1985 refusal to allow one-party recording even for police.

That federal exception lets a person who is a party to a conversation, or who has one party's prior consent, record it, unless the purpose is to commit a crime or a tort that violates federal or state law. A tort is a civil wrong, meaning a breach of a duty to another person, and the person harmed may be able to sue for it.

In Ditech Financial v. Buckles (2017), the full court, with no dissent, restated that NRS 200.620 bars recording a call unless both parties consent. Lane has not been overruled, and the Legislature has not amended NRS 200.620 to change that reading.

How far that rule reaches beyond a landline call is a question no Nevada appellate court has answered. Lane itself involved recorded telephone conversations.

Cellphone calls travel partly by radio. Nevada separately defines "radio communication" in NRS 200.610(3), while the phone law, NRS 200.620, covers only wire communications. That leaves open whether the phone law covers cellphone calls, and no Nevada court has decided it either way.

Internet-carried services such as VoIP audio and video-conference calls (Zoom, Teams, FaceTime, Google Meet) are also undecided. Because a violation is a Category D felony, the prudent course is to treat all of them as all-party.

Text messages are a different matter. Nevada defines "intercept" as the aural acquisition of a communication (NRS 179.430), and no Nevada law or decision says that saving or screenshotting texts sent to you is an illegal interception.

For a call between states, what matters is where the recording itself takes place, not merely where the Nevada participant is located. In Ditech Financial LLC v. Buckles, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (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." In other words, the statute does not apply when the call is recorded outside Nevada.

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 and get each party's agreement before substantive discussion begins. No Nevada court has held that staying on the line after a notice counts as consent.

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 (1 to 4 years). For a Category E felony, though, the court generally must suspend the sentence and grant probation unless the person has two or more prior felony convictions. In other words, a person with fewer than two prior felony convictions generally receives probation instead of serving the prison term.

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: a doorbell microphone that records conversations between other people, such as visitors or delivery workers talking at your door, can violate NRS 200.650, which bars surreptitiously recording a private conversation you are not part of unless one of the speakers authorizes it. 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.

Penalties for illegal recording in Nevada

One statute, NRS 200.690, sets the penalties for the whole group of Nevada's wire, oral, and listening-device interception laws (NRS 200.620 through NRS 200.650).

Criminal penalty:

Civil remedies (NRS 200.690):

A plaintiff, the person who sues, may seek the greater of actual or liquidated damages.

A participant who secretly records their own phone call violates Nevada law but usually not federal law. That matters because a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. section 2520 is available only if the recording also broke federal law, which generally requires that no party consented (for example, a hidden device recording other people's conversation). In that case a court may award actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.

A second kind of civil claim exists alongside the statutory claim under NRS 200.690. It is the common-law intrusion upon seclusion tort, anchored in PETA v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd., 111 Nev. 615, 895 P.2d 1269 (1995). NRS 42.005 supplies punitive damages on a clear-and-convincing showing of oppression, fraud, or malice.

The limitations period, the deadline for filing a lawsuit, 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). When it is unclear which of the two applies, plaintiffs should file within the shorter window, two years.

Recording the police in Nevada

Nevada residents have two rights to record law enforcement in public. One is an express state statute, and the other is a federal First Amendment right under court decisions that control in Nevada.

NRS 171.1233, added in 2020 during the Legislature's 32nd Special Session, 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 who is arrested still keeps the right to have the recordings and equipment maintained and returned; the arrest alone does not take that away. The statute does not protect interference with or obstruction of law enforcement activity.

Nevada is in the Ninth Circuit. The federal system groups its district courts into regional circuits, and the Ninth Circuit's court of appeals reviews federal district-court cases from Nevada. In Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), a man was videotaping a public protest march, including the police officers working it. He 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 First Amendment right the Ninth Circuit stated in Askins, citing Fordyce.

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 (a body camera) 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.

The recordings are public records, subject to the disclosure and redaction rules of NRS Chapter 239. This statute imposes obligations on agencies and officers, not on citizens.

Workplace recording and NLRB overlay

At work, the same split applies. In-person workplace conversations follow the in-person law, NRS 200.650 (one-party), and workplace phone calls follow the phone law, NRS 200.620 (all-party).

Employers face a separate federal question. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent federal agency that safeguards private-sector employees' rights to organize and to act together for better working conditions. Private-sector employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act must evaluate any no-recording handbook policy under the Board's decision in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023).

Under Stericycle, a rule is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable employee could read it as chilling Section 7 protected concerted activity, unless the employer proves the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest that a more narrowly tailored rule could not serve. Protected concerted activity means employees acting together with co-workers about work conditions, which an employer cannot fire, discipline or threaten them for.

NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) rescinded several of the prior General Counsel's memos, including GC 23-02 on electronic monitoring of employees. Stericycle remains the Board's standard for judging workplace rules, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it.

In a June 25, 2025 memo (GC 25-07), the Acting General Counsel told regional offices to treat secretly recording collective-bargaining sessions as a per se unfair labor practice. That is enforcement guidance, not a Board decision.

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. The depicted candidate enforces it through injunctive relief, meaning a court order (an injunction) telling the other side not to take some action.

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 makes it a category D felony to demand money or anything of value in exchange for removing an intimate image from public view. 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.

Our research did not locate a Nevada statute creating an express separate civil cause of action for non-consensual intimate imagery. 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. In other words, federal law sets the minimum, and a state such as Nevada may require more. Nevada's all-party phone rule applies to calls recorded in Nevada; under Ditech Financial v. Buckles (2017), a call recorded on equipment outside Nevada is judged by the law of the place where it is recorded, even if one party is in Nevada.

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (in force) holds that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which generally bars calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to certain numbers without the called party's prior express consent.

In Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's one-to-one consent rule for telemarketing calls, adopted in FCC 23-107; the FCC's separate 2024 consent-revocation order (FCC 24-24) was not vacated by that ruling.

47 CFR 64.501, a former FCC rule on recording telephone calls, was removed effective November 20, 2017, so there is no longer an FCC call-recording rule.

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.

Recent legal developments

• January 24, 2025: The Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's one-to-one consent rule (adopted in FCC 23-107) in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC.
• June 25, 2025: In memo GC 25-07, the NLRB's Acting General Counsel told regional offices to treat surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se unfair labor practice (enforcement guidance, not a Board decision).
• 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.

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:

• Nevada Audio Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
• Nevada Phone Call Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Required (2026)
• Nevada Video Recording Laws: When Consent Is Required (2026)
• Nevada Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: NRS 200.604 Penalties (2026)
• Nevada Dashcam Laws: Legal Rules for Dashboard Cameras (2026)

By place or relationship:

• Nevada Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026)
• Nevada Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights Under NRS 171.1233 (2026)
• Nevada Laws on Recording in Public: Rights and Restrictions (2026)
• Nevada School Recording Laws: Rules for Students, Parents, and Teachers (2026)
• Nevada Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and Healthcare Privacy (2026)
• Nevada Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights for Renters and Property Owners (2026)
• Nevada Security Camera Laws: Installation Rules and Privacy Limits (2026)

More Nevada laws

• Nevada AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Nevada Alimony Laws
• Nevada At-Will Employment Laws
• Nevada Common Law Marriage Laws
• Nevada Divorce 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

• Nevada AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Nevada Dashcam Laws
• Nevada Data Privacy Laws
• Nevada Deepfake Laws
• Nevada Employee Monitoring Laws
• Nevada GPS Tracking Laws
• Nevada Police Bodycam Laws
• Nevada Smart Glasses Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Nevada counts as an all-party consent state because of its phone-call rule. 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, meaning every person on the call must agree, under NRS 200.620 as the Nevada Supreme Court read it in Lane v. Allstate (1998) and Ditech Financial v. Buckles (2017). No Nevada court has decided whether the rule reaches cellphone or video calls, so treat them as all-party. 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. Whether it reaches cellphone calls, 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?

The difference comes from how the Nevada Supreme Court read the phone statute. In Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), a fractured decision that produced four separate opinions, the court construed NRS 200.620 to require all-party consent, and the full court restated that rule without dissent in Ditech Financial v. Buckles (2017). The statute permits one-party interception only together with an emergency and court ratification. The lead opinion contrasted NRS 200.650, which expressly lets one participant authorize recording an in-person conversation, and noted the Legislature chose not to copy the federal one-party exception.

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

No Nevada appellate court has ruled on it. Lane v. Allstate concerned telephone calls. Cellphone calls travel partly by radio, and Nevada separately defines radio communication in NRS 200.610(3) while NRS 200.620 covers only wire communications, so the safe course is to get everyone's consent before recording any cellphone call. Texts are different: Nevada defines intercept as aural acquisition (NRS 179.430), and no Nevada law or decision says that saving or screenshotting texts sent to you is an illegal interception.

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). You may also recover punitive damages (on a clear-and-convincing showing of oppression, fraud, or malice) and reasonable attorney fees. A federal claim under 18 U.S.C. section 2520 is available only if the recording also broke federal law, which a participant recording their own call usually does not. When it applies, a court may award actual damages or 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 outward-facing video of a porch or walkway. NRS 200.604 bars capturing an image of a person's private area without consent where the person reasonably expects privacy, which can include a public place where they reasonably expect that area would not be visible. The audio track is a separate issue: a camera that surreptitiously records private conversations between other people, such as visitors talking at your door, can violate NRS 200.650 unless one of the speakers authorizes it. Disabling audio or posting clear notice of recording is the simplest fix.

Can I record a police officer in Nevada?

Yes. NRS 171.1233 (added in 2020) expressly authorizes any person not under arrest or in police custody 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.