Recording Law for Phone & Video Calls in Nevada

Nevada requires every party to a phone call to consent before you can legally record it. This rule comes from Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 200.620, which makes it illegal to intercept a "wire communication"—meaning phone calls—without meeting two conditions: you must have at least one party’s consent AND comply with the emergency or court-order process set out in NRS 179.410 to 179.515. The Nevada Supreme Court confirmed this strict approach in *Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co.*, 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998), where it held that NRS 200.620 does not allow a simple one-party consent defense for phone calls. In practice, this means recording a phone call without the other person’s permission is a crime in Nevada, even if you’re one of the callers and believe your own consent suffices. Violations can trigger both criminal penalties and a private civil lawsuit under NRS 200.690, which authorizes liquidated and punitive damages plus attorney’s fees.

Nevada treats phone calls and in-person conversations differently. For in-person chats, NRS 200.650 lets you record if you are part of the conversation and at least one person consents. But for phone calls, NRS 200.620 does not include that same one-party consent exception; instead, it requires one-party consent plus compliance with the emergency or court-order process. The Nevada Supreme Court in *Lane v. Allstate* drew this distinction directly, explaining that the phone-call rule is stricter because the statute lacks the one-party language found in NRS 200.650. So if you’re recording a face-to-face meeting, Nevada’s one-party rule applies, but if you’re on a phone or video call with audio, you need everyone’s consent and must follow the statutory process. The court in *Lane* sanctioned a plaintiff for recording his own phone calls with only his own consent, confirming that one-party consent alone is insufficient for wire communications under NRS 200.620.

Nevada’s wiretapping law (NRS 200.610–200.690) covers phone calls and other electronic communications with audio, such as Zoom, FaceTime, or Microsoft Teams, because these are considered "wire communications" under NRS 200.620. However, the law does not restrict silent video-only recordings—only audio is covered. So if you’re recording a video call without sound, Nevada’s consent rules do not apply. If the call includes audio, the all-party consent rule and statutory process requirements apply. Separately, Nevada’s narrow statute NRS 200.604 criminalizes covert photo or 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 bathroom filming, but this does not extend to filming public disputes or police encounters.

Recording in public spaces is complicated because Nevada’s law hinges on two statutorily undefined terms: whether a conversation is "private" and whether the recording is "surreptitious." No Nevada court has defined these terms, and no reported appellate decision construes them. A cautious approach is to assume a conversation is private if the speakers are trying to keep it quiet or are in a location where others aren’t expected to overhear, and to assume a recording is surreptitious if it is concealed from the parties present. If you record openly—such as with a visible indicator—it may not be considered surreptitious. But because neither term is defined by statute or case law, there is no clear test, and the safest practice is to obtain consent before recording. Importantly, Nevada’s law also hinges on a second, independent, textually undefined threshold—'surreptitiously'—meaning a recording must be both of a private conversation and made surreptitiously before the one-party consent rule even applies.

Recording a phone call without everyone’s consent and without complying with the emergency or court-order process is a Category D felony in Nevada under NRS 200.690, punishable by up to four years in prison and fines up to $5,000. You could also face a civil lawsuit under the same statute, where the other party can sue for damages and seek attorney’s fees. These penalties apply even if you’re one of the callers and thought you had the right to record. The statute expressly provides for both criminal penalties and a private right of action with liquidated and punitive damages plus attorney’s fees, reflecting Nevada’s mixed penalty structure for eavesdropping violations.

Imagine you’re on a Zoom call with a coworker to discuss a project. You decide to record the call to keep notes, but you don’t tell your coworker and do not comply with the court-order or emergency process. Under Nevada law, this is illegal because you did not obtain the coworker’s consent and did not follow the required statutory process for phone or video calls with audio. Even though you’re part of the call, NRS 200.620 requires one-party consent plus compliance with the emergency or court-order process, and the Nevada Supreme Court in *Lane v. Allstate* confirmed that one-party consent alone is insufficient for wire communications. If your coworker finds out and reports it, you could face criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. The safer approach is to ask first, obtain written consent, and follow the statutory process where applicable.

Nevada law protects your right to record law enforcement officers performing official duties in public. NRS 171.1233, enacted during the 2020 32nd Special Session, bars officers from interfering with, threatening over, stopping, searching, or seizing recordings of law enforcement activity, so long as the person recording does not obstruct the officer or otherwise break the law. This protection exists alongside a First Amendment right recognized by the Ninth Circuit to record police performing official duties in public, as affirmed in *Fordyce v. City of Seattle*, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and *Askins v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.*, 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018). The statute also protects the right to have such recordings maintained and returned even if the person is under arrest or in custody.

Nevada protects biometric data only when it qualifies as "consumer health data" under the Nevada Consumer Health Data Privacy Law (NRS 603A.400–603A.550), which took effect March 31, 2024. The law expressly includes voiceprints within its definition of "biometric data" (NRS 603A.415) but ties its duties to whether the data is used to identify a consumer’s past, present, or future health status under NRS 603A.430. Where it applies, collection requires affirmative, voluntary consumer consent or necessity to provide a requested product or service (NRS 603A.500), and the consent request must disclose categories of data collected, purpose and manner of use, and (if 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 through the Attorney General under NRS 603A.550, which provides that violations constitute deceptive trade practices but expressly does not create a private right of action. HIPAA-covered entities, GLBA financial institutions, and several other categories are exempt (NRS 603A.490). A voice-enrollment feature that captures a voiceprint solely to distinguish the wearer from bystanders—without inferring or tracking health status—likely falls outside "consumer health data" and thus outside this chapter’s scope, though this is a statutory inference rather than a court-tested holding.