Recording Law for Employers & Businesses in Nevada

Nevada law treats phone calls and other electronic calls as "wire communications" under NRS 200.620. To legally record these conversations, you must obtain at least one party's consent AND comply with either an emergency process or a court-order process under NRS 179.410–515. The Nevada Supreme Court made this clear in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), where it ruled that recording a phone call without following the statute's consent-plus-process requirements violates the law. This rule applies even if you're a participant in the call. Penalties for violating this rule include a Category D felony under NRS 200.690, plus potential civil lawsuits with liquidated damages and attorney's fees. For your business, this means if you're recording customer service calls, Zoom meetings with remote clients, or any phone-based employee interactions, you need clear, documented consent from at least one party and must follow the emergency or court-order process before or promptly after recording.

For face-to-face conversations, Nevada allows one-party consent under NRS 200.650. This means if you're part of the conversation, you can legally record it without telling the other person — but only if the conversation qualifies as a "private conversation" captured "surreptitiously." Here's the catch: Nevada law does not define what makes a conversation "private" or a recording "surreptitious," and no Nevada appellate court has decided these terms. The Nevada Supreme Court expressly declined to rule on them in Abid v. Abid, 133 Nev. 770, 406 P.3d 476 (2017), stating, "Even assuming that Sean violated NRS 200.650... We express no opinion as to the legality of Sean's actions." Based on how Nevada courts handle privacy generally, a conversation is likely deemed "private" only where participants had an objectively reasonable expectation it would not be overheard or recorded, considering factors like location, volume, and precautions taken. A recording is likely "surreptitious" only if it is concealed from the parties; an openly visible recording indicator could plausibly take a recording outside the statute on that basis alone. For smartglasses, having a visible recording indicator could make the difference between legal and illegal recording under this vague standard. Federal courts in Nevada have also recognized a First Amendment right to record police performing official duties in public: Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995); Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018).

Nevada's recording laws only restrict audio interception. Under NRS 200.610–200.690, silent video recording without audio is not regulated by the eavesdropping/wiretapping chapter. These statutes specifically target "wire communications" and surreptitious recording of "private conversations" via a "mechanical, electronic or other listening device" — i.e., audio capture. If your smartglasses record video but don't capture audio, you can legally record customer interactions, employee activities, or public spaces without consent under the eavesdropping chapter. However, be careful: Nevada has a separate, narrow statute, NRS 200.604, which criminalizes covert photo/video capture of a person's intimate or private body areas without consent in circumstances carrying a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as upskirting or recording in bathrooms. This does not affect general workplace or customer service filming, but it does prohibit covert recording in sensitive private spaces where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Nevada law explicitly protects your right to record law enforcement officers performing official duties in public. NRS 171.1233 (added by 2020, 32nd Special Session, ch. 68) bars officers from interfering with, threatening over, stopping or searching because of, or unlawfully seizing or destroying such a recording, so long as the recording person does not obstruct the officer or otherwise break the law. This protection exists even if you're not under arrest. Federal courts in Nevada have also recognized a First Amendment right to record police performing official duties in public: Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995); Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018). For your business, this means employees wearing smartglasses can legally record police encounters during public interactions without fear of retaliation. The law specifically states officers cannot confiscate your recording device or destroy your footage just because they don't like what it shows.

Nevada does not have special rules for recording in someone's home. The one-party consent standard for in-person conversations (NRS 200.650) applies the same way whether the conversation happens in an office, retail store, or private residence. If your employee is part of the conversation, their consent satisfies the law. The only exception is if you're secretly recording someone in a private area of their home (like a bathroom), which violates NRS 200.604. For general conversation recording in a home setting, the same one-party consent rule applies as anywhere else in Nevada.

Nevada does not have a standalone biometric-privacy statute like Illinois' BIPA. Instead, biometric data is protected only when it qualifies as "consumer health data" under the Nevada Consumer Health Data Privacy Law (NRS 603A.400–603A.550, effective March 31, 2024). NRS 603A.415 defines "biometric data" to expressly include voiceprints, but the operative duties attach only when that biometric data qualifies as "consumer health data" under NRS 603A.430 — i.e., data a "regulated entity" uses to identify a consumer's past, present, or future health status. Where it applies, collection requires affirmative, voluntary consumer consent or necessity to provide a requested product or service (NRS 603A.500); the consent request must disclose categories of data collected, purpose and manner of use, and (if data is shared) categories of recipients and how to withdraw consent (NRS 603A.500(3)); consumers may request deletion, completed within 30 days of authenticating the request (NRS 603A.515). Enforcement is by the Attorney General only, with no private right of action (NRS 603A.550). HIPAA-covered entities, GLBA financial institutions, and several other categories are exempt (NRS 603A.490). For a voice-enrollment feature that captures a voiceprint solely to distinguish the wearer from bystanders (not to infer or track health status), this chapter likely does not apply on its face, but this is a statutory-text inference, not a court-tested holding. Separately, Nevada's other privacy statute, the online "sale of covered information" opt-out law (NRS 603A.300–603A.360), defines "covered information" (NRS 603A.320) as identifiers (name, address, email, phone, SSN, etc.) and does not include biometric data or voiceprints, so it imposes no voiceprint-specific duty either.

Imagine your retail store equips employees with smartglasses that can record video and audio. For customer service interactions at the checkout counter, the glasses record video silently — this is legal under Nevada's eavesdropping chapter since no audio is captured. However, if an employee uses the glasses to record a private conversation between two coworkers in a back office, this would likely violate NRS 200.650 because the conversation is probably "private" and the recording might be considered "surreptitious" if done secretly or without an openly visible indicator. For phone calls with customers, the smartglasses cannot legally record the audio unless at least one party consents and the emergency or court-order process under NRS 179.410–515 is followed. Your policy should clearly state when recording is allowed, provide visible indicators when recording is active, and document compliance with the consent-plus-process requirements for phone calls.