Nevada is treated as an all-party consent state for phone calls: get everyone's agreement before recording.
Given Nevada's all-party reading for phone calls, avoid covert recording. Announce the recording (an announced, dated archive) to stay lawful.
Recommended: an announced, dated archive of your own line.
Keep an announced, dated archive
In an all-party state, announce the recording — what judges prefer anyway. Copareo Secure Line keeps a lawful, time-stamped record of your line.
$9.90 once · no subscription, nothing to cancel
Short answer: for a phone call, treat Nevada as an all-party consent state — get everyone's agreement before you record. Nevada's law is unusual: the statute that governs wire (telephone) communications, on its face, does not read like a strict all-party rule the way California's or Pennsylvania's does. But the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted it as one, and that judicial reading is what actually controls when a parent records a call with a co-parent.
What all-party consent means in Nevada
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620 makes it unlawful to intercept or record the contents of a wire (telephone) communication without the consent of all parties. Read alongside the companion statute for in-person conversations, § 200.650 (which explicitly permits recording with the consent of just one participant), Nevada's phone-call statute looks, at first glance, like it might allow the same one-party approach. The Nevada Supreme Court closed that gap in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176 (1998). In that case, the court held that because the legislature had written an explicit one-party authorization into § 200.650 for face-to-face conversations but left that language out of § 200.620 for wire communications, the omission was intentional — the legislature meant phone calls to require the consent of every party. The result is a genuinely hybrid state: in-person conversations are one-party consent under § 200.650, but telephone and cellphone calls are all-party consent under § 200.620 as construed by Lane v. Allstate. Since Copareo is built around phone calls and text messages between co-parents, the practical classification for this product is all-party.
The penalties
Violating Nevada's wiretapping statute for wire communications can be charged as a felony (a category D felony under Nevada's sentencing structure), and it also exposes the person who recorded unlawfully to civil liability — the other party can sue for damages. This is not a minor traffic-ticket-style infraction; it is a criminal offense with meaningful prison exposure layered on top of a private right of action. A parent weighing whether to record a call secretly should treat that exposure as serious, not theoretical.
Exceptions and nuances
The single most important nuance in Nevada is the split between phone calls and in-person conversations. If you are having a face-to-face conversation with a co-parent, Nevada's § 200.650 permits recording with the consent of just one participant — meaning you, as a party to the conversation, can lawfully record it yourself without telling the other person. But the moment the conversation happens over a phone line or a cellphone call, Lane v. Allstate's reading of § 200.620 takes over, and you need everyone's consent. This is the opposite pattern from a state like Oregon, which is mixed in the other direction (one-party for phone calls, all-party for in-person under certain conditions). Do not assume Nevada's rule is uniform across every kind of conversation — the medium matters.
Using it in a Nevada custody or co-parenting case
Because Copareo Secure Line and most co-parenting documentation is built around phone calls, texts, and voicemails — not face-to-face conversations — the all-party rule from Lane v. Allstate is the one that applies in practice. A recording of a phone call with your co-parent, made without their knowledge or consent, is legally risky in Nevada and can be excluded from evidence, or worse, expose you to the felony and civil liability described above. The safer, court-friendlier path is the same one that works everywhere else: tell the other parent the call is being recorded, get their acknowledgment, and let the resulting record speak for itself. A judge in a Nevada custody matter is going to trust an announced, consented-to, dated record of communications far more than a secretly captured phone call whose legality is contested.
How Copareo handles this in Nevada
Copareo Secure Line classifies Nevada as one of its all-party states (alongside California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington) specifically because of how Lane v. Allstate reads § 200.620 for phone calls — the exact kind of communication the product is built to capture. When a parent's profile is set to Nevada, the product automatically plays a clear, spoken announcement at the start of every recorded call, before any content is captured, and this is not something a user can disable. It is a built-in guardrail so a Nevada parent using Copareo is never exposed to the risk of an unannounced phone recording under the state's judicially-construed all-party rule. Every call is then transcribed into a dated, exportable archive designed for an attorney or a family court filing.
Recording across state lines
If you are in Nevada and the co-parent you are calling is in a one-party state, do not lean on the more permissive rule. The safer, more widely followed approach is to apply the stricter of the two states' rules to the whole call — and in Nevada's case, that stricter rule is the all-party consent standard for phone calls under Lane v. Allstate. Announce the recording regardless of where the other parent is physically located.
Frequently asked questions
Is Nevada a one-party or all-party consent state?
Both, depending on the medium. In-person conversations are one-party consent under NRS 200.650. Phone and cellphone calls are treated as all-party consent under NRS 200.620, as interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1998).
Does the statute itself say “all parties” for phone calls?
Not explicitly — the all-party requirement for wire communications comes from the Nevada Supreme Court's interpretation in Lane v. Allstate, not from express statutory text the way it does in states like California or Pennsylvania.
What if I only recorded a face-to-face conversation with my co-parent?
Under NRS 200.650, recording an in-person conversation with the consent of just one participant (yourself, if you are a party to it) is generally lawful in Nevada. Phone calls are different — see above.
Can I be sued as well as prosecuted for an illegal recording in Nevada?
Yes. Nevada's wiretapping statute carries both criminal exposure (up to a category D felony) and civil liability for the person recorded to sue for damages.
Bottom line
For phone calls in Nevada, treat the state as all-party consent because of Lane v. Allstate's reading of NRS 200.620, even though the statutory text alone might suggest otherwise. Announce the recording, keep a dated record, and you avoid both the felony risk and the credibility problem a secret recording creates in family court.
Copareo Secure Line is a $9.90 one-time purchase (no subscription, nothing to cancel) built for parents documenting a co-parenting conflict for court: it captures calls and texts with the other parent, transcribes them, and produces a dated, exportable archive. In Nevada, every recorded call opens with the automatic announcement described above. See the full state-by-state recording law guide and how to document co-parenting for court for more on building a record that holds up.
Not legal advice. This page summarizes Nevada law for general information and is not a substitute for advice from a licensed Nevada attorney. Recording and evidence rules change and courts decide admissibility case by case. Verify against the official statute (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620) and consult an attorney about your situation.