Nevada
Nevada Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 24, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 24, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Nevada. Video recording in public spaces is generally lawful. For audio, Nevada uses a split framework that every smart glasses wearer must understand: in-person conversations are governed by a one-party consent rule under , but the Nevada Supreme Court held in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co. that telephone and wire communications require all-party consent under . That split matters every time you wear your glasses and your microphone is on.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Nevada?
Yes. Nevada has no statute restricting the ownership, possession, or wearing of smart glasses, augmented reality eyewear, or similar wearable technology. The Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses and comparable devices are sold and used throughout the state without restriction.
The legal issues arise exclusively from how the glasses are used, not from wearing them. Two layers of Nevada law govern recorded content: the consent framework under and for audio capture, and the unlawful-surveillance statute under for visual capture in private spaces.
The most important thing to understand about Nevada is that it does not apply a single, uniform consent rule. Whether the audio you capture is lawful depends on whether it came from an in-person conversation or a telephone and wire communication. Those are different legal categories under Nevada law, with different consent requirements and different penalties.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Video-only recording in a public space is lawful in Nevada. When a person is in a publicly accessible location, such as a street, a casino floor, a park, a retail store, or a government building, they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being observed or filmed.
The federal Wiretap Act defines an "oral communication" as an aural transfer of the human voice under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation of privacy against interception. Silent video capture in a public space does not meet that definition. Nevada law tracks this principle: NRS 200.620 and NRS 200.650 address the interception or recording of spoken communications, not video observation in a public area.
Smart glasses worn while walking the Las Vegas Strip, attending a public event, or visiting a government office therefore do not create legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The analysis changes in semi-public or private settings. A private home, hotel room, medical office, or closed-door meeting space carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces technically accessible to others, such as a restaurant booth during a quiet conversation or a workplace conference room, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of spoken words.
Under Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), both a subjective expectation of privacy and one that society recognizes as objectively reasonable must be present. Courts apply this framework to determine whether a space or conversation is "private" for purposes of Nevada's eavesdropping statutes.
Using smart glasses to secretly video-record someone in a private location, independent of the audio consent framework, can expose the wearer to civil tort liability for intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, and in extreme cases to criminal liability if intimate body parts are captured.
Recording Audio: Nevada's In-Person vs. Telephone Split
This is the most important section for smart glasses users in Nevada, and it is where Nevada's law differs from a simple one-party or all-party state. Nevada uses a hybrid framework, and the split between in-person and telephone audio is load-bearing.
In-person conversations: one-party consent under NRS 200.650
NRS 200.650 governs eavesdropping on in-person oral communications. The statute makes it unlawful for a person who is not participating in a private conversation to use any device to hear or record the conversation without the consent of at least one party. The phrase "at least one party" is the operative consent standard: a participant in the conversation may record it lawfully. The other parties do not need to be notified.
For smart glasses wearers, this means: if you are wearing your glasses and having a face-to-face conversation with another person, your audio capture of that conversation is lawful under NRS 200.650. You are a participant. You are one of the parties. No disclosure is required.
This one-party rule applies to:
- In-person business meetings and workplace discussions
- Face-to-face personal conversations
- Interactions with government officials and law enforcement in person
- Any other conversation where you are physically present and participating
A violation of NRS 200.650 by a non-participant is a Category D felony under , punishable by one to four years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.
Telephone and wire communications: all-party consent under NRS 200.620 and Lane v. Allstate
NRS 200.620 governs the interception of wire communications, which the statute defines to include telephone calls and other electronic transmissions of the human voice over wire. The statute's text does include a one-party consent clause, but it applies only when an emergency situation exists that makes obtaining a court order impractical, and a 1985 amendment narrowed who can invoke it by removing ordinary private citizens from the definition of "person" eligible to rely on that consent exception, leaving mainly public officials and law enforcement officers.
In Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), the Nevada Supreme Court produced a fractured, four-opinion decision that nonetheless settled the rule: Justice Maupin's plurality opinion, joined on this statutory question by the separate opinion of Justices Shearing and Young, held that NRS 200.620 requires all-party consent for telephone calls. Chief Justice Springer and Justice Rose each wrote separately, disagreeing with that reading for different reasons. The plurality's reasoning rested on three grounds rather than the 1985 person-definition amendment (that argument appears only in Justice Rose's dissent, which used it to argue the opposite conclusion): a textual comparison to NRS 200.650, where the Legislature added express one-party consent language for in-person conversations but left it out of NRS 200.620; the Legislature's 1973 exclusion of a federal wiretap provision, (2)(d), that would have allowed one-party consent, which the court presumed was a deliberate choice to reach a different result than federal law; and the Legislature's 1985 rejection of Assembly Bill 188, which would have permitted one-party consent for law enforcement recordings. Reading these three signals together, the plurality concluded the Legislature intended telephone recordings to require every participant's consent.
The Lane ruling remains the controlling interpretation of Nevada law. It has been extended by the Nevada Supreme Court in Sharpe v. State, 350 P.3d 388 (Nev. 2015), which applied the all-party consent requirement to cellphone calls and digital communications classified as wire communications.
For smart glasses wearers, the all-party consent rule under NRS 200.620 applies to:
- Cellphone calls made or received through the glasses (via Bluetooth, hands-free calling, or the glasses' own microphone)
- VoIP calls (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime, WhatsApp calls)
- Video calls where audio is captured
- Any other real-time voice communication transmitted over wire or electronic means
Recording any of these without the consent of every participant is a Category D felony under Nevada law, punishable by one to four years in state prison and a fine of up to $5,000.
Why the split matters for smart glasses specifically
Smart glasses create a practically invisible recording environment. When you are wearing Meta Ray-Ban glasses in a face-to-face conversation, the LED indicator is your primary disclosure mechanism. Under Nevada's in-person rule (NRS 200.650), that may be sufficient, because you are already a participant and no disclosure is legally required.
But the moment the glasses pick up audio from a phone call, a video conference, or any wire communication, the legal framework shifts. The all-party consent rule applies and the penalty jumps from a gross misdemeanor to a Category D felony. The technology does not distinguish between these modes. The microphone captures audio from both in-person voices and phone speakers. It is the legal category of the communication, not the physical medium of the recording, that determines whether a felony is occurring.
Practical consequence: if your smart glasses are connected to your phone and you receive a call while wearing them, the glasses' microphone may capture that call's audio. Ensure the glasses are not actively recording during phone calls unless all call participants have been informed and have consented.
For the full analysis of Nevada's recording consent framework, see the Nevada Recording Laws page.
Civil penalties under NRS 200.690
In addition to criminal liability, provides a civil cause of action for unlawful interception. A successful plaintiff may recover: liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000 minimum, whichever is greater; actual provable damages; punitive damages upon a clear-and-convincing showing of oppression, fraud, or malice; and reasonable attorney fees and court costs. Federal ECPA remedies under layer on top: $100 per day or $10,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and NRS 200.604
Separate from the audio consent framework, prohibits the knowing and intentional capture of an image of a person's private area without that person's consent in any place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from such observation. "Private area" covers genitalia, buttocks, and female breasts.
The statute is not limited to restrooms or similar obviously private spaces. It applies wherever the person being recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their intimate body parts.
Locations where smart glasses recording is categorically prohibited under NRS 200.604 include:
- Restrooms and bathrooms in any venue
- Locker rooms, gym changing areas, and shower facilities
- Retail fitting rooms and changing rooms
- Private residences and hotel rooms where occupants have not consented
- Medical examination and treatment rooms
No consent arrangement, announced policy, or claimed exemption overrides this prohibition. The law protects bodily privacy in these spaces absolutely.
The penalty structure for NRS 200.604 is:
- First offense: Gross misdemeanor, up to 364 days in jail and a $2,000 fine
- Second or subsequent offense: Category E felony
The federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act () adds a parallel prohibition on recording private areas on federal property. Both frameworks apply to smart glasses in exactly the same way they apply to any other recording device. The covert appearance of smart glasses, which look like ordinary eyewear, does not create a legal exception. The knowing and intentional elements of NRS 200.604 are satisfied by the act of pointing the device at a person in a prohibited context.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Data in Nevada
As of June 2026, Nevada does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), or Washington's RCW Chapter 19.375. Nevada has not enacted a law requiring notice and consent before collecting face geometry, voiceprints, or other biometric identifiers.
Smart glasses wearers in Nevada who use third-party facial recognition applications to identify individuals are not subject to Nevada-specific statutory biometric liability. However, independent legal constraints remain relevant.
Civil tort exposure
Common-law intrusion upon seclusion, recognized by Nevada courts and grounded in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, can apply whenever a person intentionally intrudes upon the seclusion of another in a manner that is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Using a facial recognition application to identify strangers in real time without their knowledge could satisfy both elements: the intentional intrusion, and the objective offensiveness of the conduct.
The 2024 I-XRAY demonstration illustrated this risk practically. Harvard students AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio combined Meta Ray-Ban glasses with PimEyes facial recognition software to identify strangers on the street, retrieving names, home addresses, and partial Social Security numbers within minutes. The technology used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. Nevada courts are capable of applying intrusion-upon-seclusion doctrine to this kind of conduct even without a biometric statute.
The three biometric states
Illinois (BIPA, 740 ILCS 14), Texas (CUBI, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001), and Washington (RCW Chapter 19.375) are the three states with dedicated biometric laws most relevant to smart-glasses facial recognition. If you use your Nevada glasses in Illinois, you immediately become subject to BIPA's requirements, which carry statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per person for capturing face geometry without written consent. The law of the state where collection occurs governs the analysis.
Criminal Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful wire communication interception (phone/VoIP) | NRS 200.620 | Category D felony | 1–4 years prison; $5,000 fine |
| Eavesdropping by non-participant (in-person) | NRS 200.650 | Category D felony | 1–4 years prison; $5,000 fine |
| Capturing private area without consent (first offense) | NRS 200.604 | Gross misdemeanor | 364 days jail; $2,000 fine |
| Capturing private area without consent (second+) | NRS 200.604 | Category E felony | 1–4 years prison (probation eligible) |
Federal Wiretap Act violations () carry up to five years imprisonment and civil liability of at least $10,000 per unlawful interception, layering on top of Nevada criminal exposure.
Civil remedies under NRS 200.690 are available in addition to criminal penalties: liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000 minimum, plus actual damages, punitive damages on clear-and-convincing proof, and attorney fees.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Nevada
Know the split before you press record. Face-to-face in-person audio falls under NRS 200.650 (one-party: you can record). Any phone or VoIP call falls under NRS 200.620 and Lane v. Allstate (all-party: you cannot record without everyone's consent). This distinction is not obvious from the technology, but both carry the same Category D felony exposure under NRS 200.690: the difference is whether you needed all-party consent or merely one-party consent.
Disconnect or pause recording during phone calls. If your smart glasses are connected to your phone and you receive or make a call, the glasses' microphone can capture the audio. Actively confirm that recording has stopped before the call connects, or verbally inform all callers that the conversation is being recorded before any audio is captured.
Let the capture LED be visible. Meta Ray-Ban glasses include a white LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is recording video, taking a photo, or going live. Meta's official guidance instructs users to let the LED shine and to stop recording if asked. Nevada law does not currently require a recording indicator for wearable devices, but deliberately covering the LED eliminates the only external notice of recording activity and will be relevant evidence in any criminal or civil proceeding.
For in-person recordings, you are on solid ground. Nevada's NRS 200.650 one-party rule for in-person conversations aligns with the federal baseline under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). If you are participating in the face-to-face conversation being recorded, no disclosure or consent is required under Nevada state law.
Avoid recording in private spaces. NRS 200.604 is strict. Restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, private residences, and medical facilities are categorically off-limits for capturing images of private areas, regardless of the audio consent framework.
Recording police and public officials in person is lawful. NRS 171.1233 explicitly recognizes the right to record law enforcement officers while they are performing their official duties in a public place, provided the person recording does not interfere with the officer's activity. You are a participant in a police encounter under Nevada's in-person rule. Recording that encounter with your glasses does not require the officer's consent.
Do not use facial recognition to identify strangers. Nevada has no biometric statute, but common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion liability remains, and if your glasses are used in Illinois, BIPA's per-person statutory damages apply immediately. The technology's capability does not determine its legality.
More Nevada Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Nevada a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Nevada uses a hybrid system. For in-person conversations, Nevada is a one-party consent state under NRS 200.650: a participant in a face-to-face conversation may record it without notifying the other party. For telephone and wire communications, the Nevada Supreme Court held in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1998) that all-party consent is required under NRS 200.620. Smart glasses wearers must apply the correct rule based on the type of communication being captured.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Nevada without telling anyone?
It depends on the type of conversation. For an in-person face-to-face conversation you are participating in, yes: NRS 200.650's one-party rule means no disclosure is required. For a phone call, VoIP call, or video call, no: Lane v. Allstate requires every participant's consent before recording wire communications. Recording a phone call without all-party consent is a Category D felony.
What is Lane v. Allstate and why does it matter for smart glasses?
Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), is a fractured Nevada Supreme Court decision with four separate opinions. Justice Maupin's plurality opinion, joined on the statutory question by the separate opinion of Justices Shearing and Young, interpreted NRS 200.620 to require all-party consent for telephone recordings. That reading relied on a textual comparison to the in-person statute (NRS 200.650), the Legislature's 1973 exclusion of a federal wiretap provision that would have allowed one-party consent, and the Legislature's 1985 rejection of a bill (A.B. 188) that would have permitted one-party consent for law enforcement recordings, concluding that ordinary telephone recordings require everyone's consent. For smart glasses, this means any call audio captured through the glasses is subject to this all-party rule, regardless of whether the wearer is a participant.
What are the penalties for recording a phone call without consent in Nevada?
Violating NRS 200.620 by recording a phone or wire communication without all-party consent is a Category D felony, punishable by one to four years in state prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Civil liability under NRS 200.690 adds liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000 minimum, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. Federal Wiretap Act civil exposure adds a minimum of $10,000 per violation.
Can I record police with smart glasses in Nevada?
Yes. NRS 171.1233 recognizes the right to record law enforcement officers performing official duties in a public place, as long as you do not interfere with their activities. An in-person police encounter is governed by NRS 200.650's one-party rule, so no announcement or consent is required. If a call is being made to or from a police dispatcher, the wire communications all-party rule under NRS 200.620 would technically apply to any captured audio of the call.
Are there places where I can never record with smart glasses in Nevada?
Yes. NRS 200.604 prohibits capturing images of a person's private area without consent in any location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical facilities. A first offense is a gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days jail, $2,000 fine); a second or subsequent offense is a Category E felony. No consent framework or announced policy makes recording in these spaces lawful.
Does the Meta Ray-Ban recording LED satisfy Nevada's consent requirement?
For in-person conversations under NRS 200.650, consent is not even required because one-party applies, and the LED is simply an additional transparency measure. For wire communications under NRS 200.620 and Lane v. Allstate, the LED alone does not satisfy the all-party consent requirement. A visible LED does not constitute notice sufficient for all-party consent. You must verbally inform all participants on a call before recording begins.
Does Nevada have a biometric privacy law for facial recognition?
No. As of June 2026, Nevada has not enacted a dedicated biometric privacy statute. Smart glasses used with facial-recognition software in Nevada are not subject to Nevada-specific statutory biometric liability. However, common-law intrusion upon seclusion applies, and if the glasses are used in Illinois, BIPA's $1,000-$5,000 per-person statutory damages apply based on where collection occurs.
Can I wear smart glasses while driving in Nevada?
Nevada's distracted driving law (NRS 484B.165) restricts the use of handheld wireless communication devices while driving. Smart glasses are not handheld, and no Nevada statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display glasses while driving. Navigation use through smart glasses is likely analogous to a mounted GPS. Using glasses for video streaming, social media, or non-driving activities while operating a vehicle raises distracted-driving risk, but the legal status is unsettled.
Updates
Corrected how this page describes Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1998): it was a fractured four-opinion Nevada Supreme Court decision, not a clean 3-2 majority-versus-dissent ruling, though its bottom-line rule (all-party consent for phone and wire communications) is unchanged.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the stated rationale for Lane v. Allstate's all-party consent holding: NRS 200.620 does contain one-party consent language (narrower than the article claimed, limited to emergencies and, after a 1985 amendment, mainly to public officials/law enforcement), so the court's actual reasoning rested on legislative history rather than a bare absence of one-party text. The holding itself, all-party consent required for phone/wire communications, is unchanged.
Corrected the FAQ and body explanation of Lane v. Allstate: the '1985 amendment narrowed who can invoke the consent exception' argument appears only in Justice Rose's dissent (arguing the opposite conclusion), not the 3-2 majority. The majority's actual reasoning rests on a comparison to NRS 200.650, the 1973 exclusion of a federal wiretap provision, and the Legislature's 1985 rejection of Assembly Bill 188. The all-party consent holding itself is unchanged.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 171: PROCEEDINGS TO COMMITMENT
§ 171.1233Recording of law enforcement activity.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
1. A person who is not under arrest or in the custody of a peace officer may record a law enforcement activity and maintain custody and control of that recording and any property or instruments used by the person to record a law enforcement activity. A person who is under arrest or in the custody of a peace officer does not, by that status alone, forfeit the right to have any such recordings, property or instruments maintained and returned to him or her. This subsection must not be construed to authorize a person to engage in actions that interfere with or obstruct a law enforcement activity or otherwise violate any other law in an effort to record a law enforcement activity.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Also relied on in: Nevada Dashcam Laws: Legal Rules for Dashboard Cameras (2026), Nevada Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights Under NRS 171.1233 (2026), Nevada Laws on Recording in Public: Rights and Restrictions (2026)
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 200: CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
§ 200.604Capturing image of private area of another person; distributing, disclosing, displaying, transmitting or publishing image of private area of another person; penalties; exceptions; confidentiality of image.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, a person shall not knowingly and intentionally capture an image of the private area of another person: (a) Without the consent of the other person; and (b) Under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, a person shall not distribute, disclose, display, transmit or publish an image that the person knows or has reason to know was made in violation of subsection 1. 3. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.780 or 212.188, a person who violates this section: (a) For a first offense, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. (b) For a second or subsequent offense, is guilty of a category E felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. 4. This section does not prohibit any lawful law enforcement or correctional activity, including, without limitation, capturing, distributing, disclosing, displaying, transmitting or publishing an image for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting a violation of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 4 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2018
Leading cases:
- Coleman v. State (Nevada Supreme Court 2018, 416 P.3d 238)“…By the Court, PICKERING, J.: NRS 200.604 prohibits a person from knowingly and i…”
- COLEMAN (SOLOMON) VS. STATE (Nevada Supreme Court 2018, 2018 NV 28)“…y the Court, PICKERING, J.: NRS 200.604 prohibits a person from knowingly and…”
- Brian Olsen v. City of Henderson (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2016, 648 F. App'x 628)“…amily. Nichols reasonably believed that Olsen had violated Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.604 by capturing and publishing to his per…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nevada Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights for Renters and Property Owners (2026), Nevada Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and Healthcare Privacy (2026), Nevada School Recording Laws: Rules for Students, Parents, and Teachers (2026)
§ 200.620Interception and attempted interception of wire communication prohibited; exceptions.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5 and NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, 209.419 and 704.195, it is unlawful for any person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire communication unless: (a) The interception or attempted interception is made with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication; and (b) An emergency situation exists and it is impractical to obtain a court order as required by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, before the interception, in which event the interception is subject to the requirements of subsection 3. If the application for ratification is denied, any use or disclosure of the information so intercepted is unlawful, and the person who made the interception shall notify the sender and the receiver of the communication that: (1) The communication was intercepted; and (2) Upon application to the court, ratification of the interception was denied.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 18 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Nevada reads NRS 200.620 as an all-party consent rule for phone recording, with a territorial limit. Lane v. Allstate Insurance held a participant who taped his own calls without the other parties' consent violated it; DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC VS. BUCKLES held it does not reach calls recorded from outside Nevada.
Leading cases:
- Lane v. Allstate Insurance (Nevada Supreme Court 1998, 114 Nev. 1176)✓A former employee secretly taped hundreds of his own phone calls with his ex-employer's staff to build his suit; the court held NRS 200.620 bars recording a call without every party's consent, so the tapes were excluded and the dismissal of his suit was reversed.
- State v. Reyes (Nevada Supreme Court 1991, 107 Nev. 191)✓Police had an interpreter listen on a station extension phone while an informant set up a drug buy; the court held that officers' use of regularly installed telephone equipment in the ordinary course of their duties is not an interception under NRS 200.620.
- ABID VS. ABID (CHILD CUSTODY) (Nevada Supreme Court 2017, 2017 NV 94)“…corded phone conversations in violation of NRS 200.620 to obtain evidence to support tort…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nevada Audio Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Nevada Security Camera Laws: Installation Rules and Privacy Limits (2026), Nevada Video Recording Laws: When Consent Is Required (2026)
§ 200.650Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.In forcecited in 19 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 13 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Nevada courts read NRS 200.650 to permit a recording authorized by a participant. Summers v. State (1986) upheld a body-wire recording because the informant taking part in the conversation authorized it. Abid v. Abid (2017) held the section carries no suppression rule, so a custody expert could consider recordings made in violation of it.
Leading cases:
- Lane v. Allstate Insurance (Nevada Supreme Court 1998, 114 Nev. 1176)✓A former employee secretly taped hundreds of phone calls with company personnel; the court read NRS 200.650 as allowing in-person private conversations to be recorded when one participant authorizes it, and contrasted that in holding NRS 200.620 bars one-party taping of calls.
- Summers v. State (Nevada Supreme Court 1986, 102 Nev. 195)✓Police taped a transmitter to an informant, who recorded his conversation with Summers about the murder guns; the court held such a recording needs no court order so long as the authorization requirement of NRS 200.650 is met, and the informant had authorized it.
- ABID VS. ABID (CHILD CUSTODY) (Nevada Supreme Court 2017, 2017 NV 94)“…to this recording, the father's actions likely violated NRS 200.650, which prohibits the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nevada Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party/All-Party Consent, Nevada Phone Call Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Required (2026), Nevada Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: NRS 200.604 Penalties (2026)
§ 200.690Penalties.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
1. A person who willfully and knowingly violates NRS 200.620 to 200.650, inclusive: (a) Shall be punished for a category D felony as provided in NRS 193.130. (b) Is liable to a person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted without his or her consent for: (1) Actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation but not less than $1,000, whichever is greater; (2) Punitive damages; and (3) His or her costs reasonably incurred in the action, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, Ê all of which may be recovered by civil action. 2. A good faith reliance by a public utility on a written request for interception by one party to a conversation is a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought against the public utility on account of the interception.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 5 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023
Leading cases:
- Lane v. Allstate Insurance (Nevada Supreme Court 1998, 114 Nev. 1176)“…shable as “a category D felony as provided in NRS 193.130.” NRS 200.690(l)(a). In addition, the violator is lia…”
- ABID VS. ABID (CHILD CUSTODY) (Nevada Supreme Court 2017, 2017 NV 94)“…regarding evidence and admissibility. See NRS 200.690(1) (enforcing NRS 200.650 exclusively…”
- DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC VS. BUCKLES (Nevada Supreme Court 2017, 2017 NV 64)“…ons without Buckles's consent.' 1 NRS 200.690(1)(b) provides a private right of actio…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nevada Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026), Nevada AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Nevada Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
United States Code Title 18
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 79 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Leading cases:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Voyeurism Laws, Utah Voyeurism Laws, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 122 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Leading cases:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 415 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Leading cases:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 115 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Leading cases:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- NRS 200.620 : Interception of wire communications. Prohibits the interception of telephone calls and wire communications. Interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court to require all-party consent in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co. Penalty: Category D felony (1–4 years prison; up to $5,000 fine) per NRS 200.690.(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 200.650 : Eavesdropping upon in-person private conversations. One-party consent rule: a participant in a conversation may record it. Violation by a non-participant: Category D felony under NRS 200.690 (1 to 4 years prison; up to $5,000 fine).(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 200.604 : Capturing image of private area without consent. Prohibits knowing and intentional capture of intimate body parts in locations with a reasonable expectation of privacy. First offense: gross misdemeanor. Second or subsequent: Category E felony.(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 200.690 : Penalties for violations of NRS 200.620 through 200.650. Sets Category D felony classification (1 to 4 years prison; up to $5,000 fine) for all wire and in-person eavesdropping violations. Also provides civil remedies: liquidated damages ($100/day or $1,000 minimum), actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998). A fractured Nevada Supreme Court decision with four separate opinions (a plurality by Justice Maupin; a concurrence/dissent by Justice Shearing, joined by Justice Young; a separate concurrence/dissent by Chief Justice Springer; and a dissent by Justice Rose). The plurality, joined on the statutory question by Shearing and Young, held that NRS 200.620 requires all-party consent for telephone recordings. Controlling precedent on wire communications consent in Nevada.(courtlistener.com)
- Sharpe v. State, 350 P.3d 388 (Nev. 2015). Nevada Supreme Court decision extending Lane v. Allstate's all-party consent requirement to cellphone calls and digital wire communications.(courtlistener.com)
- NRS 171.1233 : Right to record law enforcement. Explicitly recognizes the right to record law enforcement officers performing official duties in a public place, provided recording does not interfere with law enforcement activity.(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 : Federal Wiretap Act. One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d). Federal criminal penalty: up to 5 years imprisonment. Civil liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2520: $100/day or $10,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510 : Definitions under the federal Wiretap Act. Section 2510(2) defines 'oral communication'; § 2510(18) defines 'aural transfer.' Establishes that video-only recording without audio capture is not a federal wiretap.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801 : Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. Prohibits recording private areas of individuals on federal property without consent where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system, Meta's guidance that users should let the LED shine and stop recording if asked, and Meta's instruction to obey applicable law. Source for device-fact claims only.(meta.com)
- Meta help article: Notification LED on AI glasses. Official source for LED location (near right frame), white color when recording, and brightness adjustment settings.(meta.com)