Posted: 2/26/2009 12:29:32 PM EDT
|
I am curious as to the applicable Nevada laws governing recording of conversations.
1: Must all parties involved in the conversation be advised of the recording? 2: Are their exemptions? Just looking for some CYA - my employer is a bit shady at times. Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
I am curious as to the applicable Nevada laws governing recording of conversations. 1: Must all parties involved in the conversation be advised of the recording? 2: Are their exemptions? Just looking for some CYA - my employer is a bit shady at times. Thanks. Says right here: 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. (Added to NRS by 1957, 335; A 1973, 1749; 1989, 660) So if it's you and your employer conversing, yes. |
|
In a nutshell, if you have a recorder in your pocket and are surreptitiously recording a conversation you are involved in, you are fine.
You are not allowed to place a recorder in a room and leave the room to let people converse in it while you are not present unless they are informed prior they are subject to audio recording while there. ETA: Your company policies may address recording of conversations and that violation of such may be grounds for disciplinary action, blah, blah, blah. But that's civil, and civil is one of two things I don't do. |
|
Quoted:
In a nutshell, if you have a recorder in your pocket and are surreptitiously recording a conversation you are involved in, you are fine. You are not allowed to place a recorder in a room and leave the room to let people converse in it while you are not present unless they are informed prior they are subject to audio recording while there. ETA: Your company policies may address recording of conversations and that violation of such may be grounds for disciplinary action, blah, blah, blah. But that's civil, and civil is one of two things I don't do. Cool! So if I am the only one present I should be legal recording me arguing with myself. 
|
|
Actually the courts have been interpreting that particular law into an all parties consent law. I did some research on this.
Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping. The more accurate term is "all-party consent." http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/the-legality-of-recording-conversations.aspx
|
|
Quoted:
Actually the courts have been interpreting that particular law into an all parties consent law. I did some research on this. Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping. The more accurate term is "all-party consent." http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/the-legality-of-recording-conversations.aspxUnless I'm shown specific statutes or case law to the contrary, I'm standing by my original assertion. Most of the Nevada Supreme Court decisions and AG opinions that I've read have always taken a strict interpretation of the statute in question, so if it say one, the courts assumes it means one. I think he got this one wrong. |