Nevada

(information last updated Fall 2017)

Trespass Laws:

Criminal Liability for Trespass Despite Lack of Notice:

No.  In order for a person’s entry upon land to constitute trespass, that person must “hav[e] been warned by the owner . . . not to trespass.”  Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.200.  Signs, fluorescent orange blazes, and fencing can amount to a warning not to trespass.  See id.

Drone Laws:

Law:

“A person shall not operate an unmanned aerial vehicle within:

    (a) A horizontal distance of 500 feet or a vertical distance of 250 feet from a critical facility without the written consent of the owner of the critical facility.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 493.109.

 

“‘Critical facility’ means a petroleum refinery, a petroleum or chemical production, transportation, storage or processing facility, a chemical manufacturing facility, a pipeline and any appurtenance thereto, a wastewater treatment facility, a water treatment facility, a mine . . . , a power generating station, plant or substation and any appurtenances thereto, any transmission line that is owned in whole or in part by an electric utility . . . .  The term does not include any facility or infrastructure of a utility that is located underground.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 493.020.

 

An individual may bring an action for trespass against someone who flies a drone over private property at less than 250 ft. if “[t]he owner or operator of the [drone] has flown [it] over the property at a height of less than 250 feet on at least one previous occasion;” and “[t]he person who owns or occupies the real property notified the owner or operator of the [drone] that the person did not authorize the flight of the [drone] over the property[.]”  Nev. Rev. Stat. § 493.103.

Exception:

“An individual may not bring suit pursuant to subsection 1 if:

     (d) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of a business registered in this State or a land surveyor if: (1) The operator is licensed or otherwise approved to operate the unmanned aerial vehicle by the Federal Aviation Administration; (2) The unmanned aerial vehicle is being operated within the scope of the lawful activities of the business or surveyor; and (3) The operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle does not unreasonably interfere with the existing use of the real property.”  Nev. Rev. Stat. § 493.103.

Stalking Laws:

Criminal Law:

“A person who, without lawful authority, willfully or maliciously engages in a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or harassed, or fearful for the immediate safety of a family or household member, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or harassed, or fearful for the immediate safety of a family or household member, commits the crime of stalking.  Except where the provisions of subsection 2 or 3 are applicable, a person who commits the crime of stalking:

    (a)  For the first offense, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    (b)  For any subsequent offense, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”  Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.575.

Use of Information:

Although our research is incomplete, these provisions could be construed to prohibit the use of information collected by citizens:

Explicitly Prohibits:

“Any photograph, image, recording or other information that is acquired by a law enforcement agency . . . or that is acquired from any other person or governmental entity . . . that obtained the photograph, image, recording, or other information in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this section, [which prohibits the use of a drone “for the purpose of gathering evidence . . . upon any property . . . at which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” without a warrant except under emergency circumstances,] and any evidence derived therefrom:

    (a) Is not admissible in and must not be disclosed in a judicial, administrative or other adjudicatory proceeding; and

    (b) May not be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause as the basis for investigating or prosecuting a crime or offense.”  Nev. Rev. Stat. § 493.112.

Evidentiary Standards:

Pleading a Claim:

Requires certification that “the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”  Nev. R. Civ. P. 11.

Authentication or Chain of Custody:

“The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence or other showing sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”  Nev. Rev. Stat. § 52.015.

Expert Testimony:

Other/Statute though Daubert standard is instructive.  See Higgs v. State, 222 P.3d 648, 126 (Nev. 2010); Hallmark v. Eldridge, 189 P.3d 646, 650 (Nev. 2008).

Discussion

Please note that this discussion is not moderated by the Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic.