Recording Law for Police & Civil Rights in Nevada

Nevada law protects your right to record on-duty police officers performing official duties in public. A 2020 law, NRS 171.1233 (added by 2020, 32nd Special Session, ch. 68), says officers cannot interfere with your recording, threaten you over it, stop you from recording, search you because of it, or seize your device just for recording law enforcement activity. This applies as long as you don’t obstruct their work. The law also says if you’re arrested, your recordings must be kept and returned to you. Nevada sits in the Ninth Circuit, which has 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). This means you can film traffic stops, arrests, or other encounters in open spaces like streets, parks, or storefronts without fear of being punished just for pressing record.

For in-person conversations in Nevada, you can record if you are part of the conversation. Under NRS 200.650, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording any private conversation engaged in by the other persons unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation. The statute does not define the key terms 'private conversation' or 'surreptitiously,' so courts have not set a clear test. If you’re part of the conversation, your consent is enough, but whether the conversation is 'private' or the recording is 'surreptitious' depends on the facts. For example, a loud argument in a public park is less likely to be considered 'private' than a quiet discussion in a closed office.

Recording phone calls in Nevada is governed by NRS 200.620, which is stricter than the in-person rule. The Nevada Supreme Court held in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998) that NRS 200.620 lacks the one-party-consent language found in NRS 200.650, effectively functioning as an all-party-consent regime for phone calls. This means if you’re on a call with someone and want to record it, you must get their permission first. If you don’t, you could face penalties under NRS 200.690, which includes both criminal charges and civil lawsuits.

Recording video without audio is not restricted by Nevada’s wiretapping or eavesdropping laws. Those laws only apply to audio recordings of 'private conversations' or 'wire communications.' Silent video of police encounters in public is allowed. For example, filming a traffic stop with your phone’s camera—even if you don’t record sound—is not covered by Nevada’s audio recording laws. Just make sure you’re not secretly recording private conversations, which could still raise issues under NRS 200.650 if the conversation is 'private' and the recording is 'surreptitious.'

NRS 171.1233 says officers cannot interfere with your recording just because you’re doing it. They also can’t threaten you, stop you, search you, or take your device because of the recording. If they do, you may have a claim against them. The law applies to anyone not under arrest or in custody. Even if you are arrested, your recordings must be kept and returned to you. This protection is clear, but always make sure you’re not obstructing police work while recording. If you’re standing too close, interfering with their duties, or breaking other laws, they can still take action.

Say you’re pulled over in Las Vegas and start recording the officer with your phone. The officer tells you to stop recording. Under Nevada law, that officer is breaking the rules. NRS 171.1233 says they can’t stop you just for recording. If they take your phone to delete the video, they’re violating the law. You can politely remind them that Nevada law protects your right to record, but don’t argue or interfere with their work. If they still take your device, you may have grounds to challenge that action later.

Nevada’s eavesdropping statute, NRS 200.650, bars surreptitious recording of a 'private conversation' unless one participant consents. Neither term is defined in the statute, and no Nevada appellate court has set a specific test. Based on general Nevada privacy jurisprudence, a conversation is likely 'private' only where participants had an objectively reasonable expectation it wouldn’t be overheard or recorded, considering factors like location, volume, and precautions taken. A recording is likely 'surreptitious' only if concealed from the parties; an openly visible recording indicator could plausibly take a device’s capture outside the statute on that basis alone. Because both thresholds are open questions with no controlling Nevada authority, treat them as unsettled law—proceed with caution when recording in settings where privacy might be expected.