Nevada Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party/All-Party Consent

Nevada is a hybrid recording state: in-person conversations require only one-party consent under NRS 200.650, but telephone and cellphone 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). 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 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.

Recording phone calls in Nevada

For wire communications, including landline calls, cellphone calls, VoIP audio, video calls (Zoom, Teams, FaceTime, Google Meet), and text messages, NRS 200.620 governs. 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 3-2 decision on a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. 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.

Sharpe v. State, 350 P.3d 388 (Nev. 2015), extended Lane to cellphone calls and text messages, confirming that digital communications transmitted by wire, cable, or similar connection are "wire communications" under NRS 200.620. Sharpe is the modern controlling authority for digital-era recording in Nevada.

The practical upshot: any phone call with a Nevada participant requires the consent of every person on the line, regardless of where the other callers are located. A Nevada caller ringing into California must obtain all-party consent. An out-of-state caller in a one-party state who dials a Nevada number must obtain all-party consent from the Nevada participant. The simplest compliance approach 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.

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.

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:

Civil remedies (NRS 200.690):

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.

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. The controlling federal authority is Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), which held that the First Amendment protects the right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public, and Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018), which extended that protection to public photography of government activity in publicly accessible areas.

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) expands Nevada's definition of child pornography to include AI-generated CSAM; a first violation is a Category B felony (1 to 15 years), and a second or subsequent violation is a Category A felony (minimum 10 years to life with possibility of parole).

The express Nevada civil cause for non-consensual intimate imagery is NRS 200.788. NRS 200.785 covers sextortion (demands for payment in exchange for not distributing an intimate image). Together, NRS 200.780, NRS 200.785, and NRS 200.788 cover the full Nevada NCII regime.

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.

Recent legal developments

• 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:

• 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 Alimony Laws
• Nevada At-Will Employment Laws
• Nevada Car Accident Laws
• Nevada Car Seat Laws
• Nevada Child Custody Laws
• Nevada Child Support Laws
• Nevada Common Law Marriage Laws
• Nevada Data Privacy Laws
• Nevada Deepfake Laws
• Nevada Divorce Laws
• Nevada Dog Bite Laws
• Nevada Emancipation Laws
• Nevada Expungement Laws
• Nevada Hit and Run Laws
• Nevada Landlord-Tenant Laws