Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    7

    Default Recording Conversations in Nevada

    I am conducting legal research for the state of: Nevada

    I have found conflicting information on the internet regarding tape recording conversations in the state of Nevada. Is this a one-party or two-party consent state. I recorded a conversation between myself and employer in his office. Is it legal?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,660

    Default Re: Recording Conversations in Nevada

    The authorities you have seen are probably describing wire communications (usually phone calls).
    Quote Quoting McLellan v State, 124 Nev. Adv. Rep. 25,182 P.3d 106 (2008)
    Under Nevada law, there are two methods by which a communication may be lawfully intercepted, and thus, admissible. First, both parties to the communication can consent to the interception. [Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 1179-80, 969 P.2d 938, 940-41 (1998).] Second, one party to the communication can consent to the interception if an emergency situation exists such that it is impractical to obtain a court order and judicial ratification is sought within 72 hours.[NRS 200.620]
    Quote Quoting NRS 200.620 - Interception and attempted interception of wire communication prohibited; exceptions.
    1. Except as otherwise provided in 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.
    2. This section does not apply to any person, or to the officers, employees or agents of any person, engaged in the business of providing service and facilities for wire communication where the interception or attempted interception is to construct, maintain, conduct or operate the service or facilities of that person.

    3. Any person who has made an interception in an emergency situation as provided in paragraph (b) of subsection 1 shall, within 72 hours of the interception, make a written application to a justice of the Supreme Court or district judge for ratification of the interception. The interception must not be ratified unless the applicant shows that:
    (a) An emergency situation existed and it was impractical to obtain a court order before the interception; and

    (b) Except for the absence of a court order, the interception met the requirements of NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive.
    4. NRS 200.610 to 200.690, inclusive, do not prohibit the recording, and NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, do not prohibit the reception in evidence, of conversations on wire communications installed in the office of an official law enforcement or fire-fighting agency, or a public utility, if the equipment used for the recording is installed in a facility for wire communications or on a telephone with a number listed in a directory, on which emergency calls or requests by a person for response by the law enforcement or fire-fighting agency or public utility are likely to be received. In addition, those sections do not prohibit the recording or reception in evidence of conversations initiated by the law enforcement or fire-fighting agency or public utility from such a facility or telephone in connection with responding to the original call or request, if the agency or public utility informs the other party that the conversation is being recorded.
    I don't see an eavesdropping statute that makes it unlawful to record your boss; but whether or not there is such a statute, you can be fired for surreptitiously recording your boss. Even if the recording proves that your boss is a big fat meanie.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    7

    Default Re: Recording Conversations in Nevada

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    The authorities you have seen are probably describing wire communications (usually phone calls).
    I don't see an eavesdropping statute that makes it unlawful to record your boss; but whether or not there is such a statute, you can be fired for surreptitiously recording your boss. Even if the recording proves that your boss is a big fat meanie.
    Thank you very much, Knowitall!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    7

    Default Re: Recording Conversations in Nevada

    Oops, Mr. Knowitall, I have been going over the Mclellan v. State case, and came upon this....

    We must now determine whether evidence lawfully seized by California law enforcement under California law is admissible in a Nevada court, when such an interception would be unlawful in Nevada and therefore inadmissible. Mclellan argues that the tape of the intercepted phone call was inadmissible because NRS 200.620 dictates that all parties to a communication must consent to the interception of wire or oral communication for it to be lawful, and therefore admissible at trial.

    Then, I was investigating further about the NRS 200.690 Penalties...considering that would make my tape a category D felony, there's this....

    (d) A category D felony is a felony for which a court shall sentence a convicted person to imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 4 years. In addition to any other penalty, the court may impose a fine of not more than $5,000, unless a greater fine is authorized or required by statute.


    But I appreciate you bringing that case to my attention!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Recording Conversations in Nevada

    I think you may be misinterpreting McLellan.

    Here is NV's oral communcation statute:


    NRS 200.650 Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.


    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.

    I read this as recording a conversation YOU are not a party too. In other words 2 or more are talking and you are NOT a party to it. If you are a party to it, as I read it, you can record it?

    The statement of:


    ...Mclellan argues that the tape of the intercepted phone call was inadmissible because NRS 200.620 dictates that all parties to a communication must consent to the interception of wire or oral communication for it to be lawful, and therefore admissible at trial...

    Oral was his word on appeal, not the courts.

    He was recording while engaging in a "phone conversation" by "out of state" officers. The argument was, CA allows it but NV does not, but the SC said the jurisdiction it originates from is controlling.



    http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documen...AdvOpNo25.html

    If you want to be further in the know, pay a visit to a library where they have the NV statutes. It does not have to be a law library, maybe a main branch there?

    Look up; 200.650; after it will be case law annotations. What are those, just as McLellan is, case law. Read some and see if you agree with me.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    7

    Default Re: Recording Conversations in Nevada

    Thank you, BOR. Yes, 200.650 seems to be in my favor. Although I have gone in to a random attorney's office here, and the response I got was 'I think it's a two-party state'. Not too sure himself!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Recording Conversations in Nevada

    Quote Quoting hotpa2d
    View Post
    Thank you, BOR. Yes, 200.650 seems to be in my favor. Although I have gone in to a random attorney's office here, and the response I got was 'I think it's a two-party state'. Not too sure himself!
    I went down to the law library and looked it up. I can not find the case online, but it is:

    Sheila Ann Summers, Appellant v. The State of Nevada, Respondent; (citing State v. Bonds, 92 Nev, 307, 550 P.2nd 409 (1976))

    102 Nev 195;

    This means volume 102 of the reporter series, page 195.

    Also cited in 718 P.2nd 676. P. stands for Pacific reporter.

    Headnote 3:

    In State v. Bonds, we held that the warrantless, electronic recording of a communciation from a "transmitter-type device" attatched to a police informant did not constitute the interception of either a wire or oral communication, fn3:

    Consequently, we held that the interceptor of such a communication need not first secure an order permitting the inteception. NRS 179.470; NRS 179.475. Such an interception must, however, satisfy the authorization requiremenst set forth in NRS 200.650, fn4:

    fn 4 is identical in the case to the current law I cited.

    The court italicizes the following at the end:


    ..unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation (emphasis added).

    fn3;

    NRS 179.440 defines "Oral communication " as;

    Any verbal message uttered by a person ehibiting an expectation that such cpommunication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying such an exception.




    Headnote 4:

    The recordings made from the Oct. 5, 1982 , "body bugging" of Autry are warrantless, electronic recordings of a communication from a "transmitter type listening device", which in BONDS, we held did not constitute the interception of either a wire communication or an oral communication. The interceptor of such a communication, therefore need not first secure an order permitting the interception (NRS 179.470; NRS 179.475) so long as the authorization requirments set forth in NRS 200.050 are met.

    Autry was the informer who wore the tape.

    It appears to still be good law. I found nothing to override, it but I am also not an attorney either.

    Since YOU were a party the conversation, you had authority to tape it. That is my layman's opinion.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Recording Conversations in Nevada

    I might add, you probably only have a right to use the tape by "operation of law", such as court proceeding, etc., meaning just because you had a legal right to tape it, as we will agree, it does not give you an absolute blanket right to post it on a webpage or such, or putting an editorial in the paper about him with it verbatim.

    That would be a questionable invasion of privacy, etc. So be cautious in that repect.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Recording Conversations in Nevada

    Quote Quoting BOR
    View Post
    Headnote 4:

    The recordings made from the Oct. 5, 1982 , "body bugging" of Autry are warrantless, electronic recordings of a communication from a "transmitter type listening device", which in BONDS, we held did not constitute the interception of either a wire communication or an oral communication. The interceptor of such a communication, therefore need not first secure an order permitting the interception (NRS 179.470; NRS 179.475) so long as the authorization requirments set forth in NRS 200.050 are met.
    At the end here, that should be 200.650, not .050, what I cited before, but I am sure you figured that out.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    7

    Default Re: Recording Conversations in Nevada

    Thank you, again. You have been very helpful. Much appreciated

    (Tape was used to secure evidence against employer for breach of contract case that will be filed, btw. And he sang like a canary....)

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Privacy Crimes: Recording Conversations Without Permission
    By Sinclairbett in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-21-2011, 01:13 PM
  2. Privacy Crimes: Recording Phone Conversations
    By je20103000 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-16-2011, 05:48 PM
  3. Privacy Crimes: Recording Conversations and Meetings in Nevada
    By BMuck in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-13-2010, 03:26 PM
  4. Privacy: Recording Conversations at Work
    By jwcolonel92 in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-18-2010, 08:07 PM
  5. Privacy Crimes: Recording Conversations
    By concerned parent in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-20-2008, 02:47 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources