Nevada
Nevada Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Ring doorbells are legal in Nevada for video recording public-facing areas and your own property. Audio recording follows a split consent framework: in-person conversations require only one-party consent, but intercepting wire communications requires all-party consent under NRS 200.620, making audio capture a more serious legal consideration.
Ring doorbells record both video and audio of activity near your front door. In Nevada, the legality of that recording depends on what your camera captures and where it points. Video surveillance of public-facing areas is broadly permitted, but audio recording triggers Nevada's distinctive split consent framework, which treats in-person and telephone conversations under different standards.
Understanding these rules matters. A Ring doorbell that records a neighbor's private conversation through an open window could expose you to felony charges. This guide covers every relevant Nevada statute, explains how courts have handled doorbell camera evidence, and provides practical steps for staying on the right side of the law.
Audio Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells
Nevada's audio recording rules are more complex than most states because the legislature created two separate statutes with different consent requirements.
In-Person Conversations: One-Party Consent (NRS 200.650)
NRS 200.650 prohibits surreptitiously listening to, monitoring, or recording any private conversation "unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation." Under this standard, if you are a participant in a face-to-face discussion, your own consent satisfies the statute.
For Ring doorbell owners, this creates an important distinction. When you answer your Ring doorbell and engage in a two-way conversation with a visitor, you are a participant. Your consent as one party to that conversation makes the audio recording legal under NRS 200.650.
The risk arises when your Ring doorbell records conversations between other people on or near your property. If two visitors have a private conversation on your porch while you are not participating, NRS 200.650 requires that at least one of them authorize the recording. Your Ring doorbell capturing that exchange without either person's knowledge could constitute a violation.

Wire Communications: All-Party Consent (NRS 200.620)
NRS 200.620 governs the interception of wire communications and requires consent from every party to the communication. The Nevada Supreme Court established this all-party requirement in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 969 P.2d 938 (1998).
This statute applies primarily to phone calls, not Ring doorbell recordings. However, if your Ring doorbell picks up audio from someone's phone conversation through an open door or window, intercepting that wire communication without all parties' consent violates NRS 200.620.
Practical Audio Considerations for Ring Owners
Ring doorbells have microphones that activate automatically. As of April 2026, Ring devices allow users to disable audio recording in the app settings. Nevada homeowners concerned about legal exposure from audio capture have two options:
- Disable audio recording entirely through the Ring app settings
- Post a visible notice near the doorbell informing visitors that audio and video recording is in progress, which can help establish implied consent
Posting a notice does not guarantee legal protection under Nevada law, but it reduces the argument that recording was "surreptitious," which is the specific conduct NRS 200.650 prohibits.
Video Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells
Nevada does not have a blanket statute prohibiting outdoor video surveillance. Video recording from a Ring doorbell pointed at public areas, sidewalks, streets, or your own property is legal.
NRS 200.604: Private Area Image Capture
NRS 200.604 makes it unlawful to capture an image of the "private area" of another person without that person's consent if the image is captured under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The statute defines "private area" as the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast of a person.
A Ring doorbell that records video of a public-facing area like a porch, driveway, or sidewalk does not violate NRS 200.604. Problems arise only if the camera angle captures areas where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as through a window into a bathroom or bedroom.
Pointing Your Camera: Key Boundaries
Nevada courts apply a "reasonable expectation of privacy" analysis derived from the Fourth Amendment. Areas visible from the public right-of-way carry a diminished expectation of privacy. A Ring doorbell that captures:
- Your own porch, driveway, and walkway: Legal
- The public sidewalk and street: Legal
- A neighbor's front yard visible from the street: Generally legal
- Through a neighbor's window into private rooms: Potentially illegal under NRS 200.604
Positioning your Ring doorbell to avoid capturing interior views of neighboring homes is the safest approach under Nevada law.

HOA and Ring Doorbells in Nevada
Nevada's Common-Interest Communities are governed by NRS Chapter 116. This statute gives HOA boards authority to adopt and enforce rules through Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), including rules about exterior modifications and device installation.
What HOAs Can Regulate
Many Nevada HOAs have adopted rules covering exterior devices, including doorbell cameras. Common HOA restrictions include:
- Requirements for architectural approval before installation
- Limits on camera color, size, or visibility from the street
- Rules about where cameras can point relative to common areas
- Restrictions on mounting hardware that damages exterior surfaces
Limits on What HOAs Can Do
Association rules in Nevada are constrained by NRS 116.31065, which requires that a rule be reasonably related to the purpose for which it was adopted, be explicit enough to tell an owner what compliance requires, be consistent with the association's governing documents, avoid arbitrarily restricting conduct, and be uniformly enforced against all owners in the same or similar circumstances. A rule that is not uniformly enforced may not be enforced against any owner at all.
NRS 116.2111 adds a second limit: in approving or disapproving an improvement or alteration to a unit, an association may not act in violation of any state or federal law. That section also bars an association from unreasonably restricting or withholding approval for a short list of specific additions, including extra locks and security shutters. Doorbell cameras are not on that list. NRS 116.2111(1)(b) separately provides that a unit's owner may not change the exterior appearance of a unit without the association's permission, which is why a visible doorbell camera generally does run through architectural review.
Nevada law does not include a specific statute guaranteeing the right to install security cameras that overrides HOA restrictions, unlike some other states. Homeowners who face HOA pushback on Ring doorbell installation should start with their association's architectural review process.
If that fails, NRS 38.310 requires that a civil claim about the interpretation, application, or enforcement of CC&Rs or association rules be submitted to mediation, or referred to a Division program, under NRS 38.300 to 38.360 before any lawsuit is filed, and that the association's own administrative procedures be exhausted first. A court must dismiss an action filed without that step. The "Division" for this purpose is the Real Estate Division of the Department of Business and Industry (NRS 38.300), and the Office of the Ombudsman for Owners in Common-Interest Communities, created within that Division by NRS 116.625, assists owners with claims submitted to mediation or arbitration. An owner who believes the association violated NRS Chapter 116 may also file a written affidavit with the Division, within one year of discovering the alleged violation, under NRS 116.760.
Practical Approach
Before installing a Ring doorbell in an HOA community in Nevada, review your CC&Rs for any provisions covering exterior devices, security cameras, or architectural modifications. Submitting a formal request to the architectural review committee, if one exists, can prevent fines and disputes.

Landlord and Tenant Rights
Nevada's landlord-tenant law (NRS Chapter 118A) does not specifically address doorbell camera installation. The general framework for modifications and access applies.
Tenant Installation Rights
Tenants in Nevada can typically install a Ring doorbell if they:
- Obtain written permission from the landlord before making any exterior modifications
- Agree to restore the property to its original condition upon move-out
- Ensure the camera does not record areas beyond the tenant's leased space in ways that violate other tenants' privacy
Under NRS 118A.330, landlords must provide at least 24 hours' notice before entering a rental unit (except in emergencies). A Ring doorbell does not change this requirement, but footage from the device could document whether a landlord complied with notice requirements.
Landlord Installation
Landlords who install Ring doorbells on rental property exteriors should disclose the presence of cameras to tenants. While Nevada law does not specifically mandate this disclosure for exterior cameras, failing to inform tenants about recording devices could raise privacy concerns under the broader framework of NRS 200.650, particularly regarding audio capture.
Cameras installed by landlords should never be pointed at areas where tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as through windows into the rental unit.
Law Enforcement Access to Ring Footage
How police access Ring doorbell footage in Nevada involves both federal constitutional protections and Amazon's corporate policies.
Warrant Requirements
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Nevada courts recognize that the area immediately surrounding a home (the "curtilage") receives strong constitutional protection. Law enforcement seeking Ring footage generally needs one of the following:
- A valid search warrant issued by a Nevada court based on probable cause
- Homeowner consent to voluntarily share footage
- A subpoena or court order in certain circumstances
Amazon Ring's Policy
As of 2024, Amazon discontinued the "Request for Assistance" tool that allowed police to ask Ring users for footage through the Neighbors app. Law enforcement agencies must now obtain Ring footage through:
- A legally binding warrant or court order served to Amazon
- Direct requests to the homeowner, who can voluntarily share footage
- Emergency disclosure requests, which Amazon evaluates on a case-by-case basis for imminent threats to life
The FTC's 2023 settlement with Ring required the company to strengthen its privacy protections and delete certain unlawfully obtained data, reinforcing the expectation that Ring footage access follows proper legal channels.
Ring Footage as Court Evidence
Ring doorbell footage is admissible as evidence in Nevada courts when it meets standard authentication requirements. As reported by KSNV News 3 Las Vegas, doorbell camera video has been used in Nevada criminal cases. Key factors courts consider include:
- Whether the footage was obtained legally
- Whether the recording system was functioning properly
- Whether the footage has been altered or tampered with
- The chain of custody for the digital files
Because homeowners (not police) own Ring doorbells, footage recorded by a homeowner's device typically does not constitute a warrantless government search under the Fourth Amendment.

Penalties for Illegal Recording in Nevada
Violating Nevada's recording laws carries significant consequences.
Criminal Penalties (NRS 200.690)
Under NRS 200.690, willfully and knowingly violating NRS 200.620 through NRS 200.650 is a Category D felony in Nevada. Penalties include:
| Penalty | Details |
|---|---|
| Prison | 1 to 4 years in Nevada State Prison |
| Fine | Up to $5,000 |
| Probation | May be available for first-time offenders |
Civil Liability
Victims of illegal recording can also bring a civil lawsuit. Under NRS 200.690(1)(b), a person whose wire or oral communication was intercepted without consent may recover:
- Actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation but not less than $1,000, whichever is greater. The statute makes these alternatives, not two awards that stack.
- Punitive damages
- Costs reasonably incurred in the action, including a reasonable attorney's fee
Because the liquidated-damages figure accrues per day, a Ring doorbell that continuously recorded a neighbor's private conversations over a long period could produce a liquidated-damages number larger than the provable actual harm. Where that happens, the larger figure is the one the plaintiff recovers, not both.
Voyeurism Charges (NRS 200.604)
If a Ring doorbell captures images of a person's "private area" without consent, the offender faces:
- First offense: Gross misdemeanor
- Subsequent offenses: Category E felony, punished as provided in NRS 193.130
Category E is Nevada's least severe felony class, and NRS 193.130(2)(e) treats it differently from the others. The sentencing range is a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 4 years, with a fine of up to $5,000, but the court must suspend execution of that sentence and grant probation unless one of two narrow exceptions applies (NRS 176A.100(1)(b) or NRS 453.336(2)(a)). The court may require up to 1 year in county jail as a condition of that probation. A second voyeurism conviction is therefore a felony conviction that in most cases does not carry immediate state prison time.
How to Use a Ring Doorbell Legally in Nevada
Following these guidelines helps Nevada residents operate Ring doorbells within the bounds of state law.
1. Position the camera carefully. Aim your Ring doorbell at your own property and public-facing areas. Avoid angles that capture through neighbors' windows or into private spaces.
2. Consider disabling audio. Turning off audio recording in the Ring app eliminates exposure to NRS 200.620 and NRS 200.650 entirely. This is the most conservative approach under Nevada's split consent framework.
3. Post a visible notice. A sign near your Ring doorbell stating "Audio and Video Recording in Progress" helps establish that recording is not surreptitious. While not a guarantee of legal compliance, it weakens any claim that visitors had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
4. Check your HOA rules. Before installing, review your CC&Rs and submit any required architectural modification requests.
5. Get landlord permission if renting. Tenants should obtain written approval before installing any exterior device.
6. Secure your Ring account. Enable two-factor authentication, use a strong password, and review shared access regularly. The FTC's 2023 findings highlighted security vulnerabilities; protecting your account prevents unauthorized access to your footage.
7. Understand your rights with police. You are not legally required to share Ring footage with law enforcement without a warrant or court order. Sharing is voluntary unless compelled by legal process.
More Nevada Laws
Nevada has additional laws covering related topics that affect residents:
- Nevada Recording Laws cover the full scope of audio and video recording rules in the state.
- Nevada Hit and Run Laws explain reporting requirements and penalties for leaving the scene of an accident.
- Nevada Lemon Law outlines protections for consumers who purchase defective vehicles.
This article provides general legal information about Nevada Ring doorbell laws as of April 2026. Laws and their interpretations can change. Consult an attorney licensed in Nevada for advice specific to your situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record audio with my Ring doorbell in Nevada?
Nevada permits audio recording of in-person conversations with one-party consent under NRS 200.650. If you are a participant in the conversation (for example, speaking through Ring's two-way talk feature), your consent satisfies the law. Recording conversations between third parties without any participant's consent may violate the statute.
Is it legal to point my Ring doorbell at a neighbor's property in Nevada?
You can record video of areas visible from public spaces, including a neighbor's front yard. Pointing your Ring doorbell to capture through a neighbor's windows or into private interior areas could violate NRS 200.604, which prohibits capturing images of private areas without consent.
Can my Nevada HOA ban Ring doorbells?
An HOA in Nevada can regulate the installation and appearance of exterior devices through CC&Rs, including requiring architectural approval, and NRS 116.2111(1)(b) says a unit's owner may not change a unit's exterior appearance without the association's permission. Under NRS 116.31065, however, any rule must be reasonably related to its purpose, consistent with the governing documents, and uniformly enforced against all owners. Review your community's governing documents before installation.
Do police in Nevada need a warrant to access my Ring footage?
Generally, yes. The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to access Ring footage from Amazon. Police can also ask you directly to share footage voluntarily. Amazon's policy as of 2024 requires a valid warrant or court order for law enforcement requests.
What are the penalties for illegal recording with a Ring doorbell in Nevada?
Violating Nevada's eavesdropping laws (NRS 200.620 through NRS 200.650) is a Category D felony, punishable by 1 to 4 years in state prison and fines up to $5,000. Under NRS 200.690(1)(b), a victim can also sue for the greater of actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation with a $1,000 floor, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
Updates
Corrected the definition of "private area" under NRS 200.604 to match the statute's text.
Corrected the HOA section, which cited two Nevada statutes that do not say what the article claimed, and clarified two penalty points: a repeat voyeurism conviction is a category E felony that carries mandatory probation under NRS 193.130, and the civil remedies in NRS 200.690 award actual or liquidated damages, whichever is greater, rather than both.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; 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: Nevada Recording Laws (2026): All-Party for Calls, One-Party in Person, Nevada Windshield Mounting Laws (2026 Guide), Nevada Dashcam Laws: Legal Rules for Dashboard Cameras (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: Nevada Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, Nevada Audio Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Nevada Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights for Renters and Property Owners (2026)
§ 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 15 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 opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 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 Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and Healthcare Privacy (2026), Nevada Laws on Recording in Public: Rights and Restrictions (2026), Nevada School Recording Laws: Rules for Students, Parents, and Teachers (2026)
§ 200.690Penalties.In forcecited in 18 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 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)“…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 Phone Call Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Required (2026), Nevada Security Camera Laws: Installation Rules and Privacy Limits (2026), Nevada Video Recording Laws: When Consent Is Required (2026)
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 116: COMMON-INTEREST OWNERSHIP (UNIFORM ACT)
§ 116.2111Alterations of units; access to units.In force
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and subject to the provisions of the declaration and other provisions of law, a unit’s owner: (a) May make any improvements or alterations to his or her unit that do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the common-interest community; (b) May not change the appearance of the common elements, or the exterior appearance of a unit or any other portion of the common-interest community, without permission of the association; and (c) After acquiring an adjoining unit or an adjoining part of an adjoining unit, may remove or alter any intervening partition or create apertures therein, even if the partition in whole or in part is a common element, if those acts do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the common-interest community. Removal of partitions or creation of apertures under this paragraph is not an alteration of boundaries. 2. An association may not: (a) Unreasonably restrict, prohibit or otherwise impede the lawful rights of a unit’s owner to have reasonable access to his or her unit.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
§ 116.31065Rules.In force
The rules adopted by an association: 1. Must be reasonably related to the purpose for which they are adopted. 2. Must be sufficiently explicit in their prohibition, direction or limitation to inform a person of any action or omission required for compliance. 3. Must not be adopted to evade any obligation of the association. 4. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1 of NRS 116.335, must be consistent with the governing documents of the association and must not arbitrarily restrict conduct or require the construction of any capital improvement by a unit’s owner that is not required by the governing documents of the association. 5. Must be uniformly enforced under the same or similar circumstances against all units’ owners. Any rule that is not so uniformly enforced may not be enforced against any unit’s owner. 6. May be enforced by the association through the imposition of a fine only if the association complies with the requirements set forth in NRS 116.31031.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
§ 116.625Ombudsman for Owners in Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels: Creation of office; appointment; qualifications; powers and duties.In force
1. The Office of the Ombudsman for Owners in Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels is hereby created within the Division. 2. The Administrator shall appoint the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is in the unclassified service of the State. 3. The Ombudsman must be qualified by training and experience to perform the duties and functions of office. 4. In addition to any other duties set forth in this chapter, the Ombudsman shall: (a) Assist in processing claims submitted to mediation or arbitration or referred to a program pursuant to NRS 38.300 to 38.360, inclusive; (b) Assist owners in common-interest communities and condominium hotels to understand their rights and responsibilities as set forth in this chapter and chapter 116B of NRS and the governing documents of their associations, including, without limitation, publishing materials related to those rights and responsibilities; (c) Assist members of executive boards and officers of associations to carry out their duties; (d) When appropriate, investigate disputes involving the provisions of this chapter or chapter 116B of NRS or the governing documents of an association and assist in resolving such…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Saticoy Bay LLC Ser. 4952 Miners Ridge (Nevada Supreme Court 2017)“…e due process because there is no state action.' Relying on NRS 116.625, U.S. Bank asserts that the Ombudsman f…”
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Rjrn Holdings, LLC (Nevada Supreme Court 2018)“…closure sales. Assuming the Ombudsman is a state actor, see NRS 116.625(2) (providing that the Ombudsman "is in…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 116.760Right of person aggrieved by alleged violation to file affidavit with Real Estate Division; procedure for filing affidavit; administrative fine or sanctions for filing false or fraudulent affidavit; designation as vexatious affiant.In force
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who is aggrieved by an alleged violation may, not later than 1 year after the person discovers or reasonably should have discovered the alleged violation, file with the Division a written affidavit that sets forth the facts constituting the alleged violation. The affidavit may allege any actual damages suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the alleged violation. 2. An aggrieved person may not file such an affidavit unless the aggrieved person has provided the respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, with written notice of the alleged violation set forth in the affidavit. The notice must: (a) Be mailed to the respondent’s last known address. (b) Specify, in reasonable detail, the alleged violation, any actual damages suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the alleged violation, and any corrective action proposed by the aggrieved person. 3. A written affidavit filed with the Division pursuant to this section must be: (a) On a form prescribed by the Division.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2015
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Freedom Mortgage Corp. v. Las Vegas Development Group, LLC (District Court, D. Nevada 2015, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1174)“…38.310 and also failed to provide the affidavit required by NRS 116.760. 16 Because I grant LVDG’s motion and…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 118A: LANDLORD AND TENANT: DWELLINGS
§ 118A.330Landlord’s access to dwelling unit.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
1. A tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent for the landlord peaceably to enter into the dwelling unit to: (a) Inspect the premises; (b) Make necessary or agreed repairs, decorating, alterations or improvements; (c) Supply necessary or agreed services; or (d) Exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, contractors or other persons with a bona fide interest in inspecting the premises. 2. The landlord may enter the dwelling unit without consent of the tenant in case of emergency. 3. The landlord shall not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant. Except in case of emergency, the landlord shall give the tenant at least 24 hours’ notice of intent to enter and may enter only at reasonable times during normal business hours unless the tenant expressly consents to shorter notice or to entry during nonbusiness hours with respect to the particular entry. 4. The landlord has no other right of access except: (a) Pursuant to court order; (b) Where the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises; or (c) Where permitted under NRS 118A.440.
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 Landlord-Tenant Laws (2026): Deposits, Notice, and Tenant Rights
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 176A: PROBATION AND SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
§ 176A.100Authority and discretion of court to suspend sentence and grant probation; persons eligible; enhanced supervision; submission of report of presentence investigation.In force
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 176A.110 and 176A.120, if a person is found guilty in a district court upon verdict or plea of: (a) Murder of the first or second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, sexual assault, attempted sexual assault of a child who is less than 16 years of age, lewdness with a child pursuant to NRS 201.230, an offense for which the suspension of sentence or the granting of probation is expressly forbidden, or if the person is found to be a habitual criminal pursuant to NRS 207.010, a habitually fraudulent felon pursuant to NRS 207.014 or a habitual felon pursuant to NRS 207.012, the court shall not suspend the execution of the sentence imposed or grant probation to the person. (b) A category E felony, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the court shall suspend the execution of the sentence imposed and grant probation to the person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 26 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Roberts v. State (Nevada Supreme Court 2004, 120 Nev. 300)“…th formal notice in the charging document that, pursuant to NRS 176A.100, 1 probation is discretionary rather…”
- Little v. Warden (Nevada Supreme Court 2001, 117 Nev. 845)“…luding probation for persons convicted of sexual assault is NRS 176A.100(l)(a). 2 Little…”
- Savage v. Third Judicial District Court (Nevada Supreme Court 2009, 125 Nev. 9)“…sions further supports our conclusion. As a starting point, NRS 176A.100 broadly authorizes the district court t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 193: CRIMINALITY GENERALLY
§ 193.130Categories and punishment of felonies.In forcecited in 9 of our articles
1. Except when a person is convicted of a category A felony, and except as otherwise provided by specific statute, a person convicted of a felony shall be sentenced to a minimum term and a maximum term of imprisonment which must be within the limits prescribed by the applicable statute, unless the statute in force at the time of commission of the felony prescribed a different penalty. The minimum term of imprisonment that may be imposed must not exceed 40 percent of the maximum term imposed. 2. Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, for each felony committed on or after July 1, 1995: (a) A category A felony is a felony for which a sentence of death or imprisonment in the state prison for life with or without the possibility of parole may be imposed, as provided by specific statute. (b) A category B felony is a felony for which the minimum term of imprisonment in the state prison that may be imposed is not less than 1 year and the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed is not more than 20 years, as provided by specific statute.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 97 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. SECOND JUDICIAL DIST. CT.(PULLIN) (Nevada Supreme Court 2008, 124 Nev. 564)“…ral savings statutes adopted *568 in 1967 as NRS 193.130, 15 193.140, 16…”
- Washington v. State (Nevada Supreme Court 2001, 117 Nev. 735)“…of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. 3. A person who offers, agrees or ar…”
- Hudson v. Warden (Nevada Supreme Court 2001, 117 Nev. 387)“…le I, II, III or IV, for a category E felony as provided in NRS 193.130. (b) For a third or subsequent offens…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nevada Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Nevada Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: NRS 200.604 Penalties (2026), Nevada GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 038: MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
§ 38.300Definitions.In force
As used in NRS 38.300 to 38.360, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. “Assessments” means: (a) Any charge which an association may impose against an owner of residential property pursuant to a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions, including any late charges, interest and costs of collecting the charges; and (b) Any penalties, fines, fees and other charges which may be imposed by an association pursuant to paragraphs (j) to (o), inclusive, of subsection 1 of NRS 116.3102 or subsections 10, 11 and 12 of NRS 116B.420. 2. “Association” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 116.011 or 116B.030. 3. “Civil action” includes an action for money damages or equitable relief. The term does not include an action in equity for injunctive relief in which there is an immediate threat of irreparable harm, or an action relating to the title to residential property. 4. “Division” means the Real Estate Division of the Department of Business and Industry.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McKnight Family, LLP v. Adept Management Services, Inc. (Nevada Supreme Court 2013, 129 Nev. 610)“…arbitration pursuant to the provisions of NRS 38.300 to 38.360, inclusive. . . .…”
- Hamm v. Arrowcreek Homeowners' Ass'n (Nevada Supreme Court 2008, 124 Nev. 290)“…d to mediation or arbitration pursuant to the provisions of NRS 38.300 to 38.360, inclusive.” 9 I…”
- SATICOY BAY, LLC SER. 9720 HITCHING RAIL VS. PECCOLE RANCH CMTY. ASS'N (Nevada Supreme Court 2021, 495 P.3d 492)“…pursuant to the provisions of NRS 38.300 to 38.360,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 38.310Limitations on commencement of certain civil actions.In force
1. No civil action based upon a claim relating to: (a) The interpretation, application or enforcement of any covenants, conditions or restrictions applicable to residential property or any bylaws, rules or regulations adopted by an association; or (b) The procedures used for increasing, decreasing or imposing additional assessments upon residential property, Ê may be commenced in any court in this State unless the action has been submitted to mediation or, if the parties agree, has been referred to a program pursuant to the provisions of NRS 38.300 to 38.360, inclusive, and, if the civil action concerns real estate within a planned community subject to the provisions of chapter 116 of NRS or real estate within a condominium hotel subject to the provisions of chapter 116B of NRS, all administrative procedures specified in any covenants, conditions or restrictions applicable to the property or in any bylaws, rules and regulations of an association have been exhausted. 2. A court shall dismiss any civil action which is commenced in violation of the provisions of subsection 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 27 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McKnight Family, LLP v. Adept Management Services, Inc. (Nevada Supreme Court 2013, 129 Nev. 610)“…m a district court order dismissing a complaint pursuant to NRS 38.310 and from a post-judgment order denying…”
- Hamm v. Arrowcreek Homeowners' Ass'n (Nevada Supreme Court 2008, 124 Nev. 290)“…owners must submit to mediation or arbitration, pursuant to NRS 38.310, 2 before they initiate a…”
- Dezzani v. Kern & Assocs., Ltd. (Nevada Supreme Court 2018, 412 P.3d 56)“…he Dezzanis failed to submit their claim to mediation under NRS 38.310(1). 3 See Dezzani v . Kern & Asso…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 453: CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
§ 453.336Unlawful possession not for purpose of sale: Prohibition; penalties; exception.In force
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 6, a person shall not knowingly or intentionally possess a controlled substance, unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a prescription or order of a physician, physician assistant licensed pursuant to chapter 630 or 633 of NRS, dentist, podiatric physician, optometrist, advanced practice registered nurse, certified registered nurse anesthetist, pharmacist registered pursuant to NRS 639.28079 or veterinarian while acting in the course of his or her professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by the provisions of NRS 453.005 to 453.552, inclusive.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 69 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Sheriff, Clark County v. Luqman (Nevada Supreme Court 1985, 101 Nev. 149)“…In count *153 two, Luqman is charged under NRS 453.336 with unlawful possession of marijuana.…”
- Goodson v. State (Nevada Supreme Court 1982, 98 Nev. 493)“…commend sentencing under the non-adjudication provisions of NRS 453.336. 1 At the time of this inc…”
- Rouse v. State (Nevada Supreme Court 1975, 91 Nev. 677)“…n without jail time and a deferred sentence, as provided in NRS 453.336, subsection 6. 2 Rouse’s a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 116: COMMON-INTEREST OWNERSHIP (UNIFORM ACT) § 116.001 (Short title.) · Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 118A: LANDLORD AND TENANT: DWELLINGS § 118A.010 (Short title.)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- NRS 200.650 - Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 200.620 - Interception and attempted interception of wire communication prohibited; exceptions(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 200.604 - Capturing image of private area of another person(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 200.690 - Penalties for violations of NRS 200.620 to 200.650(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS Chapter 116 - Common-Interest Ownership (Uniform Act)(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS Chapter 118A - Landlord and Tenant: Dwellings(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998)(law.justia.com)
- FTC - Ring employees illegally surveilled customers, failed to stop hackers(ftc.gov).gov
- FTC Blog - Ring lax practices led to privacy and security violations(ftc.gov).gov
- KSNV News 3 - Are doorbell cameras admissible in court?(news3lv.com)
- NRS 116.31065 - Rules (association rules must be reasonable, consistent with governing documents and uniformly enforced)(leg.state.nv.us)
- NRS 116.2111 - Alterations of units; access to units(leg.state.nv.us)
- NRS 116.625 - Ombudsman for Owners in Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels: creation of office; powers and duties(leg.state.nv.us)
- NRS 116.760 - Right of person aggrieved by alleged violation to file affidavit with Real Estate Division(leg.state.nv.us)
- NRS 38.300 - Definitions (mediation and arbitration of common-interest community disputes)(leg.state.nv.us)
- NRS 38.310 - Limitations on commencement of certain civil actions (mediation prerequisite for CC&R disputes)(leg.state.nv.us)
- NRS 193.130 - Categories and punishment of felonies(leg.state.nv.us)