Nevada recording consent laws
Last reviewed: . Checked against the official statute text.
General information, not legal advice. Laws change; consult an attorney about your situation.
Quick Answer
Nevada law uses different rules for recording in-person conversations and phone calls.
- In person: One-party consent.
- Phone calls: Depends: One party's consent is enough only in an emergency that makes a court order impractical, and the interception must then be ratified by a court.
In-person conversations: One-party consent
Except as otherwise provided by statute, a person may not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring, or recording any private conversation engaged in by other persons with a mechanical, electronic, or other listening device unless authorized to do so by at least one of the persons engaging in the conversation.
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.
Phone calls: Depends: One party's consent is enough only in an emergency that makes a court order impractical, and the interception must then be ratified by a court
Under this section, intercepting or attempting to intercept any wire communication is unlawful unless conducted with the prior consent of at least one party to the communication and an emergency situation exists that makes obtaining a prior court order impractical.
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.
What this means in common sales settings
- In-home sales visits
- A sales conversation in a customer's home is an in-person conversation, which the in-person rule describes: One-party consent.
- Dealership and retail floors
- A conversation on a showroom, dealership or store floor is also an in-person conversation: One-party consent.
- Field sales
- A field rep's face-to-face meetings follow the in-person rule above. Calls follow the phone rule: Depends: One party's consent is enough only in an emergency that makes a court order impractical, and the interception must then be ratified by a court. Whether a particular conversation meets that condition depends on its circumstances.
- Calls across state lines
- When a call connects people in different states, more than one state's law can be relevant. This page describes Nevada law only; the guide's index lists the other jurisdictions it covers.
How the Itero app handles consent
The Itero mobile app for iPhone and Android asks the rep to confirm that everyone present agreed before every in-person recording, and Itero keeps a timestamped record of that consent. The app is in English. Virtual ride-alongs in the Itero app