Nevada recording consent law for interviews: all-party on the phone, one-party in person

Nevada has one rule for phone calls and another for conversations in a room. Recording an in-person conversation is lawful if one of the people in it authorizes it (NRS 200.650). Recording a phone call is a different matter: in Lane v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1998), the Nevada Supreme Court read NRS 200.620 as requiring the consent of every party. A willful violation is a felony, and the person recorded can sue for at least $1,000. For recruiters, a phone screen with a Nevada candidate needs everyone's consent, and video interviews should be treated the same way.

The consent checker asks whether the interview is by phone, video or in person, which matters here.

Below: why the phone statute is all-party even though it mentions one party's consent, the in-person rule, how each interview format fits, penalties and damages, cross-state calls, and a consent line.

The phone statute: why one party's consent is not enough

NRS 200.620(1) makes it unlawful "for any person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire communication unless":

1. "The interception or attempted interception is made with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication; and"
2. "An emergency situation exists and it is impractical to obtain a court order," in which case the interception has to be ratified by a judge within 72 hours.

The word "and" is the whole story. One party's consent is only enough when combined with an emergency and a court ratification process. Outside that, the only clean way to record a call is with all parties' consent.

In Lane v. Allstate Insurance Co., 114 Nev. 1176 (1998), Allstate alleged that a former employee had illegally tape-recorded more than 700 telephone conversations. The court's opinion concluded that "the district court correctly held that Lane violated the provisions of NRS 200.620," contrasting the phone statute's wording with the in-person statute. A separate opinion pointed out that only three members of the court agreed on what the statute means, so the reasoning is not as settled as a unanimous ruling would be, but it remains the leading Nevada decision and the reason Nevada appears on lists of all-party states for phone calls. It is also a workplace case: the recordings became part of an employment dispute.

The statute applies to "wire communication," which NRS 200.610 defines as a transmission "by wire, cable, or other similar connection between the points of origin and reception." Ordinary phone calls fit. We found no Nevada decision on whether a video call over the internet is a wire communication; treat it as one.

The in-person statute: one party may authorize

NRS 200.650 says a person shall not intrude on the privacy of others "by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording" any "private conversation engaged in by the other persons," or disclose it, "unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation." An interviewer in the room is one of those persons, so recording an in-person interview does not violate this section. Recording a conversation you are not part of, without a participant's authorization, does.

How the rules apply to interview formats

Penalties and damages

Under NRS 200.690, a person who "willfully and knowingly" violates NRS 200.620 to 200.650:

• is guilty of a category D felony, which under NRS 193.130 means a prison term of 1 to 4 years and a possible fine of up to $5,000; and
• is liable to the person whose communication was intercepted without consent for "actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation but not less than $1,000, whichever is greater," punitive damages, and costs including a reasonable attorney's fee.

The willful-and-knowing standard is a higher bar than some states set, but it is not much protection for a team that knows the rule and records phone screens anyway.

What it means for recording or transcribing an interview

1. Phone screens need everyone. The candidate, and any colleague on the line, must agree before capture starts.
2. Transcription is interception. Turning a call into text through a device acquires its contents. Use the same consent step for a transcription tool as for a recorder.
3. Do not rely on the in-person rule for calls. A Nevada recruiter used to recording in-person meetings can get the phone rule wrong. The format changes the rule.
4. Candidates who record. A candidate who records a phone interview without your agreement is in the same position under NRS 200.620. Decide your policy for candidate requests in advance.

Calls that cross the Nevada line

Nevada borders California, which requires all parties' consent for confidential communications and for calls involving a mobile phone. A Las Vegas recruiter calling a candidate in California, or a Reno recruiter calling one in Sacramento, is bound by two all-party rules at once. Calls with candidates in Arizona or Utah, usually described as one-party states, are still all-party on the Nevada side.

On how Nevada courts treat recordings made elsewhere, the one decision we found is about criminal evidence. In McLellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263 (2008), the Nevada Supreme Court held that evidence of a phone call to a person in Nevada, intercepted by California law enforcement lawfully under California law, was admissible in a Nevada court. That says little about a private employer's exposure, and courts in other states have applied their own stricter law to calls recorded elsewhere, as California's Supreme Court did in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006). Plan for the strictest rule on the call. The general approach is in recording calls across state lines.

Panels, coordinators and shared recordings

The phone rule counts every party on the line. On a panel phone screen, each interviewer's consent is needed as well as the candidate's, so agree internally before the call. A coordinator who sets up capture for an interview they are not on is not a party at all, and under the in-person statute would need a participant's authorization even for a meeting in a room. NRS 200.650 also prohibits disclosing the "existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning" of a conversation recorded in violation of it, so be careful with recordings whose origin you do not know.

A consent line for Nevada interviews

"Before we start: I'd like to [record / transcribe] this call so I
have accurate notes for the [role] position. Only [who] will see it,
and it's deleted after [period]. If you'd prefer I didn't, just say
so and I'll take notes by hand. It won't affect your application.
Do I have your consent to [record / transcribe]?"

[Wait for a clear yes before capture starts.]

For phone-specific setup, including how to capture the consent exchange, see how to record a phone screen. Panel and email versions are in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Nevada interviews

1. Get every party's consent before recording or transcribing a phone screen.
2. Treat video interviews as phone calls.
3. Tell candidates in in-person interviews as well, even though one participant may authorize recording.
4. Never record a conversation you are not part of without a participant's authorization.
5. Do not share a recording you are unsure was made with consent.
6. Write the format-specific rule into your policy, with a date.

Nevada is one of three split states in the two-party consent states table, and the reason some lists put it among the one-party consent states.