Call Recording Laws in Nevada

Plain-English summary

Nevada applies different rules to different media. For telephonic communications, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620 requires the consent of all parties or, where consent of one party is given, judicial authorization. The Nevada Supreme Court in Lane v. Allstate Insurance Co., 114 Nev. 1176 (1998), confirmed the all-party interpretation of § 200.620.

For in-person oral communications, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.650 imposes a different standard: it prohibits intrusion on the privacy of others, which has been read to allow a participant to record where the conversation does not occur in a setting reasonably expected to be private. The two-rule framework makes Nevada one of the more counter-intuitive jurisdictions: a face-to-face conversation may be recorded one-party, but a phone call may not.

Case law of note

No appellate decision in Nevada has materially reshaped the participant-recording rule in recent decades. Lower-court decisions exist but do not change the analytical framework set by the statute and by general federal precedent under § 2511.

Edge cases and special rules

In-person vs. phone. Different rule — one-party for in-person under § 200.650
Voicemail. Leaving a message creates the recording at the recipient’s direction; reviewing one’s own voicemail is not interception.
Vicarious consent. Several federal courts have recognized a parental-consent doctrine permitting a parent to consent on behalf of a minor child (Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1998)). State law varies; no controlling Nevada appellate decision on the question.
Law enforcement. Court-authorized intercepts are governed by a separate framework and are outside the scope of this page.
Cross-border calls. Where any participant is in an all-party state, treat the stricter rule as the safer default. See cross-border calls.

Penalties and remedies

Criminal: Category D felony for unauthorized telephonic recording under § 200.690.

Civil: Yes — § 200.690 provides actual and statutory damages.

Evidence: a recording made in violation of the Nevada statute is generally inadmissible in Nevada proceedings. Federal § 2515 separately bars use of unlawfully intercepted communications in federal proceedings.

Practical guidance

If you are recording an ordinary phone call: obtain audible consent from every party at the start of the call.
Suggested opening: See our consent script templates for jurisdiction-specific language.
If the other party objects: stop recording. Continued recording over an objection is a separate factual question that no consent statute helps you with.
What to keep: the date and time of the call, the parties’ phone numbers, a description of the consent given (express verbal, continued participation after notice, etc.), and the audio file itself.