• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

7 Rules for Recording Police

usmcmustang

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
wrightme said:
NRS 200.650 as cited above doesn't read that way. What statute do you refer to that would define Nevada as a '2-party' state?
Click to expand...

Here's what the Nevada Supreme Court had to say about NRS 200.650 and 200.620...

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1091302.html

Although I have looked, I am unable to find any case that supersedes this one. Might be one out there though. It would seem that Nevada is and is not a '2-party' state... depends on who's who and what's what.
 
john-in-reno

john-in-reno

Regular Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
237
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
usmcmustang said:
Here's what the Nevada Supreme Court had to say about NRS 200.650 and 200.620...

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1091302.html

Although I have looked, I am unable to find any case that supersedes this one. Might be one out there though. It would seem that Nevada is and is not a '2-party' state... depends on who's who and what's what.
Click to expand...

I like the last part that says:

Using these statutory construction rules, it leads me to the conclusion that the statutory definition of “person” as contained in NRS 200.620 should be interpreted to apply only to public officials and law enforcement personnel, and not to private citizens such as Lane.
Click to expand...
(or you or I for that matter)

I therefore conclude that Lane did not violate any law in recording telephone conversations to which he was a party.   Accordingly, this case should be reversed, and Lane should be permitted to pursue his claim against Allstate in district court.
Click to expand...

Once I was told that nevada was a 2-party state i started digging into the law and interpreted it just how the judges did, but never knew for sure till now.

Thanks for the link usmcmustang, that was a long but informative read
 
V

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Using these statutory construction rules, it leads me to the conclusion that the statutory definition of “person” as contained in NRS 200.620 should be interpreted to apply only to public officials and law enforcement personnel, and not to private citizens such as Lane.
Click to expand...
I therefore conclude that Lane did not violate any law in recording telephone conversations to which he was a party.   Accordingly, this case should be reversed, and Lane should be permitted to pursue his claim against Allstate in district court.
Click to expand...
Somewhat confusing topic. But very interesting!

So, did the case get reversed?

Am still not 100% sure what can and cannot be done.
 
usmcmustang

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
varminter22 said:
Somewhat confusing topic. But very interesting!

So, did the case get reversed?

Am still not 100% sure what can and cannot be done.
Click to expand...

The majority opinion of the court affirmed the district courts ruling(s), i.e., [FONT=&quot]"...we (the majority) conclude that the district court correctly held that Lane violated the provisions of NRS 200.620 when he tape-recorded telephone conversations with employees of his former employer.[/FONT]"

However, NRS 200.620 speaks directly to telephone recordings... and the majority went on to say "In NRS 200.650, the legislature prohibited surreptitious intrusion upon in-person, private conversations by means of any listening device, but specifically added the language “unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.” \

So there one pretty much has it... Nevada is and remains a 2-party consent state for the purpose of telephone recordings, but is a 1-party state for the purpose of in-person recordings.

But... all bets are off when it comes to recording public officials in the performance of their public duties. I do believe that the courts have held repeatedly that public officials performing public duties have no expectation of privacy and therefor audio and video recordings of their actions/behaviors does not fall within any wiretap/recording/photographing, etc., statutes.
 
usmcmustang

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
OC-moto450r said:
...us mere citizens are not allowed (to record conversations without consent of both parties)...according to Tigerlily's friend in the NLV courthouse. Which brings up another thought; What makes it legal for NV LE to record in-car, on-person video/audio?
Click to expand...

Well, plain and simple, "TigerLily's friend in the NLV courthouse" was absolutely full of ****. She (the city marshal) was using the old tried and true LE tactic of intimidation, regardless of the truth of the matter. I would have absolutely loved for that marshal to have "arrested" TL for a violation of the NRS... and so would have TL. That would have been some fun in the NLV Muni Court of non-record.

Oh, on a side note... TL got a helmet ticket (again... that makes 4) at Tropicana and Koval early this morning. Her last 3 have been dismissed... we'll see where this one goes.
 
F

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
Nevada is a 2 party state for telephone recording only. Refered to otherwise as wiretap. "NRS 200.620 Interception and attempted interception of wire communication prohibited"

Nevada is a 1 party state for in person/live recording. "NRS 200.650 Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited"

Private conversations. If you are a participant, you can record.

If you are not involved in the conversation, you need to have the permission of somebody that IS involved in the conversation to record.

So, for interactions with police. If they are talking to you, and you are talking to them, the officer may believe it to be a private conversation, but:
1. you can't be considered surreptitious or intruding, as a participant in the conversation.
2. the police officer is a public official and has no expectation of privacy.

I love it when people who are supposed to enforce the law, don't know the law, or try to BS you by give parts and pieces of another law to intimidate. Trying to make the law fit their situation/need.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top