Recorded statements are sometimes key to many cases. However, the question of whether the recording was legally obtained sometimes arises unless it is clear in the recording the parties knew they were being recorded. The Supreme Court recently discussed Nevada’s statute on this point.
Ditech Fin. LLC v. Buckles apparently concerned conservsations between a borrower and a mortgage servicer that had been recorded without the borrower’s consent. “NRS 200.620 prohibits a person from recording a telephone call unless both parties participating in the call consent to the recording.” The question at issue was “whether NRS 200.620 applies to recordings of telephone conversations with a person in Nevada without that person’s consent when the recordings are made by a party who is located and uses recording equipment outside of Nevada.” Ditech concluded “NRS 200.620 does not apply when the act of interception takes place outside Nevada. Instead, interceptions and recordings occur where made.” Stated another way, “NRS 200.620 does not apply to the recording of interstate calls when the act of recording takes place outside Nevada.”
I suppose the practical effect of this ruling is to make one party consent states the place to be for putting recording equipment. However, if you are recording in Nevada, you still need both parties’ consent.