Nevada
Nevada Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights Under NRS 171.1233 (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Nevada law gives you a clear right to record on-duty police officers in public. NRS 171.1233 codifies this right in statute, and in-person audio recording follows one-party consent under NRS 200.650 because officers performing public duties carry no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Nevada is one of the clearest states in the country when it comes to your right to record police. NRS 171.1233 explicitly states that any person who is not under arrest or in police custody may record law enforcement activity, and officers are prohibited from interfering with that right. This statutory protection, combined with Ninth Circuit case law recognizing a First Amendment right to record police, gives Nevadans strong legal ground to film and audio record police encounters.
This guide covers the scope of your recording rights, the limits of those rights, how Nevada's split consent framework applies to police interactions, body camera requirements, and what to do if an officer tries to stop you from recording.
Your Statutory Right to Record Police (NRS 171.1233)
What the Statute Says
NRS 171.1233 provides that:

- Any person who is not under arrest or in the custody of a peace officer may use any lawful device to capture moving or still images, sound, or other impressions of a law enforcement officer performing official duties
- Law enforcement officers are prohibited from interfering with a person who is lawfully exercising this right
- Being under arrest does not by itself forfeit the right to have your recordings and recording equipment maintained and returned to you
- This right does not authorize a person to engage in actions that interfere with or obstruct law enforcement activity
The statute is unusually clear. Many states rely on case law and constitutional interpretations to protect the right to record police. Nevada codified this right directly in statute, removing ambiguity.
Who Can Record
The right to record police under NRS 171.1233 extends to:
- Bystanders witnessing a police encounter
- Participants in a traffic stop or police interaction
- Journalists and media representatives
- Individuals being questioned who are not under arrest or in custody
- Passengers in a vehicle during a traffic stop
There is no requirement that you be a member of the press. Any person with any lawful recording device can exercise this right.
What You Can Record
You can record any law enforcement activity that you can observe, including:
- Traffic stops
- Arrests and detentions
- Police interactions with civilians on the street
- Protests and crowd control activities
- Accident investigations on public roads
- Police executing search warrants (from a public vantage point)
- DUI checkpoints and sobriety checks
How Nevada's Split Consent Framework Applies to Police Recording

In-Person Recording: One-Party Consent
When you record police officers in person, whether by video or audio, the recording falls under NRS 200.650, Nevada's one-party consent rule for in-person conversations. If you are a participant in the interaction (the officer is speaking to you or you are speaking to the officer), your own consent is sufficient.
Even if you are a bystander recording from a distance, the conversation between the officer and another person on a public street typically does not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy, meaning the recording does not require consent at all.
Phone Calls to Police: All-Party Consent
If you call 911 or a police non-emergency line, treat the call as covered by NRS 200.620, which the Nevada Supreme Court has read to require every party's consent to record a phone call. No Nevada court has decided whether it reaches cellphone calls, so get the dispatcher's consent before recording.
However, Nevada provides a statutory exception for emergency call facilities. Under NRS 200.620(4), law enforcement agencies may record calls coming in on their emergency lines, and the statute attaches no notice condition to those incoming calls. An agency must tell you the conversation is being recorded only when it records a call it places back to you in responding.
If you want to record your own 911 call, the safest approach is to announce at the start that you are recording and get the dispatcher's agreement; no Nevada court has held that an announcement alone is consent.
Limits on Your Right to Record

Physical Interference
NRS 171.1233 specifically states that the right to record does not authorize interfering with or obstructing law enforcement. You cannot:
- Physically obstruct an officer making an arrest
- Enter a crime scene to get a better angle
- Stand so close that you impede an officer's movement
- Refuse to comply with lawful orders that are unrelated to recording (such as being asked to step back for safety)
Interfering with a police officer is a separate offense under NRS 197.190, which makes it a misdemeanor to willfully resist, delay, or obstruct a public officer in discharging any legal duty.
Safe Distance
While Nevada does not specify an exact distance you must maintain from police, courts generally require that recording be done from a distance that does not interfere with police operations. A reasonable guideline is to stay far enough away that officers can perform their duties without having to navigate around you, but close enough that your recording device can capture the events.
Lawful Orders
Officers can issue lawful orders related to safety, crowd control, and crime scene management. If an officer orders you to move back from a dangerous situation, you must comply even though you have a right to record. The order to move is lawful; an order to stop recording is not.
Private Property
Your right to record police on public property is well-established. Recording police activity that occurs on private property (such as inside someone's home during a search) is more limited. You cannot enter private property without permission to record police activity. If you are the property owner or resident, you have the right to record within your own home.
Body Camera Requirements (NRS 289.830)

What the Law Requires
NRS 289.830 requires most Nevada law enforcement agencies to equip uniformed officers who routinely interact with the public with body-worn cameras. Key requirements include:
- Officers must activate body cameras when responding to calls for service
- Officers must activate cameras when initiating any law enforcement encounter
- Agencies must retain body camera footage for at least 15 days
- Agencies must adopt policies protecting the privacy of people in a private residence, anonymous informants and people who say they are crime victims; any retention beyond 15 days depends on agency policy
Accessing Body Camera Footage
Members of the public can request body camera footage through Nevada's public records laws. Under NRS 239.010, government records are presumed to be public records. Under NRS 289.830(2), body-camera footage is a public record that must be requested one incident at a time. If it contains confidential information that cannot be redacted, the agency may make it available only for inspection at its offices rather than producing a copy.
Agencies may charge reasonable fees for producing copies of footage.
When Officers Fail to Activate Body Cameras
NRS 289.830 requires activation during law enforcement encounters, and it requires every covered agency to establish disciplinary rules for officers who fail to operate their cameras as policy requires, intentionally manipulate a video, or erase one prematurely. What discipline follows in a given case depends on the agency's rules.
In court proceedings, the absence of body camera footage when it should exist may be relevant. Defense attorneys can argue that missing footage creates an adverse inference about what occurred.
What to Do If an Officer Tries to Stop You From Recording
Know Your Rights
If a police officer orders you to stop recording, you should be aware that:
- NRS 171.1233 explicitly prohibits officers from interfering with lawful recording
- The Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Nevada, recognizes a First Amendment right to record police in public (Askins v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 9th Cir. 2018)
- NRS 171.1233 bars officers from unlawfully seizing your device, or destroying or copying your recording without your consent or a court's approval, because you recorded them. Under Riley v. California (2014), police generally need a warrant to search your phone's contents, although they may hold it while they get one
Practical Steps
If confronted by an officer who demands you stop recording:
- Stay calm. Do not argue aggressively.
- State clearly: "I am exercising my right to record under NRS 171.1233. I am not interfering with your duties."
- Comply with lawful orders such as stepping back for safety.
- Do not physically resist if an officer attempts to take your device. Verbal objection is appropriate; physical resistance can lead to arrest.
- Note the officer's name, badge number, and agency.
- File a complaint afterward with the agency's internal affairs division.
- Consult an attorney if your recording was confiscated or deleted, as you may have civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Legal Remedies for Interference
If an officer illegally interferes with your right to record:
- Statutory violation: The officer may have violated NRS 171.1233, which you can raise in an internal affairs complaint and in a lawsuit; the statute itself does not set a criminal penalty or create a separate damages claim
- Internal affairs complaint: Most agencies have formal complaint procedures
- Civil rights lawsuit: Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, you can sue state actors who violate your constitutional rights
- State civil claim: Depending on the circumstances, claims for false arrest, assault, or property damage may be available
Recording Police During Protests
Nevada has seen significant protest activity, and recording police during demonstrations is protected under both NRS 171.1233 and the First Amendment. During protests:
- You can record police from any location where you are legally present
- Officers may not stop, seize or search you because you are recording them (NRS 171.1233)
- The statutory right to record covers people who are not under arrest or in custody; if you are arrested, you still keep the right to have your recordings and equipment kept and returned (NRS 171.1233)
- Journalists receive the same protections as any other person under NRS 171.1233
The Ninth Circuit has been particularly protective of the right to record police activity during protests, and Nevada's statutory protection adds an additional layer of security.
Police Recording of Civilians
During Encounters
Police officers routinely record civilians through body cameras, dashcams, and handheld devices. This recording is authorized under NRS 289.830 (body cameras) and general law enforcement authority. You do not have the right to demand that an officer stop recording you during an official encounter.
Wiretaps and Surveillance
For investigative wiretaps and electronic surveillance, law enforcement must obtain a court order under NRS 179.410 through 179.515. This requires a showing of probable cause and approval by a district court judge. Warrantless wiretaps are permitted only in emergency situations, and judicial ratification must be sought within 72 hours.
Ninth Circuit Case Law
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Nevada, has issued several decisions recognizing the right to record law enforcement:
- Askins v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018): Recognized a First Amendment right to photograph and record matters of public interest, including law enforcement performing duties in public
- Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995): Recognized a First Amendment right to film matters of public interest, reversing summary judgment on claims that a police officer tried to stop a man from videotaping a public protest march
These federal court decisions provide constitutional protections that supplement Nevada's statutory protections under NRS 171.1233.
More Nevada Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
More Nevada Recording Topics
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
Can I legally record police in Nevada?
Yes. NRS 171.1233 explicitly protects the right of any person to record law enforcement officers performing their duties. Officers are prohibited from interfering with lawful recording. You do not need permission from the officer. The Ninth Circuit also recognizes this as a constitutional right.
Can a police officer take my phone or camera in Nevada?
NRS 171.1233 bars officers from unlawfully seizing your phone or camera, or deleting or copying your recording without your consent or a court's approval, because you recorded them. Under Riley v. California (2014), police generally need a warrant to search your phone's contents, although they may hold it while they get one. If an officer takes your device, do not physically resist, but verbally state your objection, note the officer's information, and consult an attorney about potential civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
How close can I stand when recording police in Nevada?
Nevada does not specify an exact distance. You must remain far enough away that you do not interfere with police operations, but close enough to record. If an officer asks you to step back for safety reasons, you should comply with that order while continuing to record from the new location.
Do Nevada police have to wear body cameras?
Most Nevada law enforcement agencies must equip uniformed officers who routinely interact with the public with body cameras under NRS 289.830. Officers must activate cameras when responding to calls or initiating encounters. Footage must be retained for at least 15 days.
Does Nevada's all-party consent phone rule apply when calling police?
Treat it as applying. Lane v. Allstate requires every party's consent to record a phone call under NRS 200.620, and no court has excluded cellphone calls. Separately, NRS 200.620(4) lets police agencies record calls coming in on their emergency lines without telling you; notice is required only for calls the agency places back to you in responding. If you want to record your own call to police, announce it at the start and get the dispatcher's agreement.
Updates
Corrected the emergency-line exception (Nevada does not require dispatch to announce recording on incoming 911 calls, only on return calls) and noted that phone calls with police are treated as all-party.
Corrected what officers may do with your phone or camera under NRS 171.1233 and Riley v. California, removed a criminal-complaint remedy the statute does not create, replaced an unsourced body-camera retention and withholding list with what NRS 289.830 actually says (including its required disciplinary rules), and narrowed the protest and 911-call guidance to what the law supports. We corrected the page to say Nevada's statutory right to record police (NRS 171.1233) covers people who are not under arrest or in custody, while an arrested person keeps the right to have recordings and equipment kept and returned, and to say no Nevada court has decided whether the all-party phone rule reaches cellphone calls to police.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the description of Fordyce v. City of Seattle to reflect that the Ninth Circuit recognized a right to film matters of public interest while reversing summary judgment, rather than establishing that right.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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 200: CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
§ 200.650Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.In forcecited in 25 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 opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 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.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 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: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026), Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026)
§ 200.620Interception and attempted interception of wire communication prohibited; exceptions.In forcecited in 38 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 opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 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.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 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: Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026), One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide, Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 171: PROCEEDINGS TO COMMITMENT
§ 171.1233Recording of law enforcement activity.In forcecited in 5 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 Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, Nevada Recording Laws (2026): All-Party for Calls, One-Party in Person, Nevada Dashcam Laws: Legal Rules for Dashboard Cameras (2026)
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 179: SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS OF A CRIMINAL NATURE; SEALING RECORDS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS; REWARDS; FORMS
§ 179.410Definitions.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
As used in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, except where the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in NRS 179.415 to 179.455, inclusive, have the meanings ascribed to them in those sections.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lane v. Allstate Insurance (Nevada Supreme Court 1998, 114 Nev. 1176)“…es, in pertinent part: 1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515 inclusive, 209.419 and 704.1…”
- Koza v. State (Nevada Supreme Court 1984, 100 Nev. 245)“…ed; exceptions. 1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, no person shall…”
- Summers v. State (Nevada Supreme Court 1986, 102 Nev. 195)“…200.650 provides: Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, no person shall…”
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 Phone Call Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Required (2026)
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 197: CRIMES BY AND AGAINST THE EXECUTIVE POWER OF THIS STATE
§ 197.190Obstructing public officer.In force
Every person who, after due notice, shall refuse or neglect to make or furnish any statement, report or information lawfully required of the person by any public officer, or who, in such statement, report or information shall make any willfully untrue, misleading or exaggerated statement, or who shall willfully hinder, delay or obstruct any public officer in the discharge of official powers or duties, shall, where no other provision of law applies, be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (Nevada Supreme Court 2002, 118 Nev. 868)“…refused, and he was arrested pursuant to NRS 171.123(3) and NRS 197.190. 17 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit noted…”
- Willson v. First Jud. Dist. Ct. (Court of Appeals of Nevada 2024, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 7)“…In this opinion, we consider constitutional challenges to NRS 197.190, which provides that a person may not “…”
- Hogan v. Warden (Nevada Supreme Court 1996, 112 Nev. 553)“…ic officer); NRS 197.110(2) (misconduct of public officer); NRS 197.190 (obstructing public officer)" and other…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 239: PUBLIC RECORDS
§ 239.010Public books and public records open to inspection; confidential information in public books and records; copyrighted books and records; copies to be prepared by governmental entity and provided in electronic format unless other medium requested.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 1.4683, 1.4687, 1A.110, 3.2203, 41.0397, 41.071, 49.095, 49.293, 62D.420, 62D.440, 62E.516, 62E.620, 62H.025, 62H.030, 62H.170, 62H.220, 62H.320, 75A.100, 75A.150, 76.160, 78.152, 80.113, 81.850, 82.183, 86.246, 86.54615, 87.515, 87.5413, 87A.200, 87A.580, 87A.640, 88.3355, 88.5927, 88.6067, 88A.345, 88A.7345, 89.045, 89.251, 90.703, 90.730, 91.160, 116.757, 116A.270, 116B.880, 118B.026, 119.260, 119.265, 119.267, 119.280, 119A.280, 119A.653, 119A.677, 119B.370, 119B.382, 120A.640, 120A.690, 125.130, 125B.140, 126.141, 126.161, 126.163, 126.730, 127A.160, 127A.230, 127B.370, 127B.750, 127C.420, 127C.870, 127E.120, 128.090, 130.312, 130.712, 136.050, 159.044, 159A.044, 164.041, 172.075, 172.245, 176.01334, 176.01385, 176.015, 176.0625, 176.09129, 176.156, 176A.630, 178.4715, 178.5691, 178.5717, 179.495, 179A.070, 179A.165, 179D.160, 180.600, 200.3771, 200.3772, 200.5095, 200.604, 202.3662, 205.4651, 209.392, 209.3923, 209.3925, 209.419, 209.429, 209.521, 211A.140, 213.010, 213.040, 213.095, 213.131, 217.105, 217.110, 217.464, 217.475, 218A.350, 218F.150, 218G.130, 218G.240, 218G.350, 218G.615, 223.250,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 37 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Donrey of Nevada, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1990) held a police investigative report is a public record under NRS 239.010 where no statute declares it confidential, subject to a balancing of interests, and ordered it released. Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Haley (2010) applied that framework to concealed firearms permit records.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal (Nevada Supreme Court 2003, 119 Nev. 55)✓A newspaper sought appraisal and relocation records for Reno's federally funded rail trench project; the court held a federal regulation adopted into Nevada law by NRS 342.105 makes them confidential, placing them within the NRS 239.010 exemption for records confidential by law.
- Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Haley (Nevada Supreme Court 2010, 126 Nev. 211)✓A newspaper sought records on the suspension of the governor's concealed firearms permit; the court held NRS 202.3662 covers only the application and pre-issuance investigation, so the permittee's name and post-permit records are public under NRS 239.010, subject to redaction.
- Donrey of Nevada, Inc. v. Bradshaw (Nevada Supreme Court 1990, 106 Nev. 630)✓News outlets sought a police report on the dismissal of charges against Joe Conforte; the court held criminal investigative reports are not declared confidential by statute and, weighing open government against privacy and law enforcement, ordered the whole report released.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nevada Security Camera Laws: Installation Rules and Privacy Limits (2026), Are Autopsy Reports Public in Nevada? (2026 Guide), Nevada Police Reports: How to Get a Crash Report, Incident Report, or Bodycam Video
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 289: PEACE OFFICERS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL
§ 289.830Certain law enforcement agencies shall require certain peace officers to wear portable event recording device while on duty; adoption of policies and procedures governing use; request for and inspection of record made by device.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
1. A law enforcement agency shall require uniformed peace officers that it employs and who routinely interact with the public to wear a portable event recording device while on duty. Each law enforcement agency shall adopt policies and procedures governing the use of portable event recording devices, which must include, without limitation: (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d), requiring activation of a portable event recording device whenever a peace officer is responding to a call for service or at the initiation of any other law enforcement or investigative encounter between a uniformed peace officer and a member of the public; (b) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d), prohibiting deactivation of a portable event recording device until the conclusion of a law enforcement or investigative encounter; (c) Prohibiting the recording of general activity; (d) Protecting the privacy of persons: (1) In a private residence; (2) Seeking to report a crime or provide information regarding a crime or ongoing investigation anonymously; or (3) Claiming to be a victim of a crime; (e) Requiring that any video recorded by a portable event recording…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- REPUBLICAN ATTORNEYS GEN. ASS'N VS. LAS VEGAS METRO. POLICE DEP'T (Nevada Supreme Court 2020, 458 P.3d 328)“…formation from disclosure. RAGA points to NRS 289.830(2), which states:…”
- Conrad v. Reno Police Dep't (Nevada Supreme Court 2023)“…a footage constitutes a public record under NRS 289.830(2), an officer's _photograph is…”
- Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't v. Dist. Ct. (Am. Broad. Co.'s, Inc.) (Nevada Supreme Court 2018)“…footage, as opposed to inspection of the footage, as NRS 289.830 requires inspection if…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Police Bodycam Laws (2026): Mandate, Retention & Access, Nevada Police Body Camera Laws: Access & Retention, Nevada Public Records Act: How to Request Records (2026)
United States Code Title 42
§ 1983Civil action for deprivation of rightsIn forcecited in 52 of our articles
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 282,365 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Supreme Court of the United States 2009, 556 U.S. 662)“…its brought against state officials under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983.” Hartman, 547 U. S., at 254, n. 2. Cf.…”
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett (Supreme Court of the United States 1986, 477 U.S. 317)“…policeman as she left. Petitioner brought an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 claiming that the refusal of service a…”
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs. (Supreme Court of the United States 1978, 436 U.S. 658)“…decided less than two decades ago. Focusing new light on 42 U. S. C. § 1983 , that decision widened access to the f…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: 11th Circuit Voids Notice Before Eviction Deposit Forfeiture, Florida Man Sues Police Over Facial Recognition Arrest (2026), Tenth Circuit Affirms Club Q Dismissals Under Colorado's CPLA
Sources and References
- NRS 171.1233 - Right to Record Law Enforcement(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 200.650 - Surreptitious Intrusion of Privacy(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 200.620 - Interception of Wire Communications(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 289.830 - Body-Worn Camera Requirements(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 197.190 - Obstructing a Public Officer(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 239.010 - Public Records(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- 42 U.S.C. Section 1983(law.cornell.edu)
- NRS 179.410 - Law Enforcement Wiretap Authority(leg.state.nv.us).gov