Nevada hearing considers allowing one-party recordings in child-abuse investigations

CARSON CITY, Nev. — The Assembly Judiciary Committee on March 12 heard testimony on Assembly Bill 275, a narrowly drawn proposal that would let Nevada peace officers record telephone or voice-based electronic communications in investigations of alleged sexual abuse of children if one party to the call — typically the victim, a parent or guardian — consents.

Sponsor Assembly member P.K. O'Neil opened the hearing by saying AB275 "seeks to ensure that juries have full, complete, and accurate information in cases concerning Nevada's smallest and most vulnerable victims." He described the measure as limited to child sexual-abuse cases and said a conceptual amendment clarifies that a single party to a call (the victim, parent or guardian) may consent to a recording made at a peace officer's direction.

Prosecutors and law-enforcement witnesses told committee members the recordings are already commonly used in other states and that recording would prevent juries from relying on investigators' notes or memory. Todd Williams, a detective with the Washoe County Sheriff's Office assigned to crimes against children, said Nevada is among the most restrictive states on recording and that recorded pretext calls have produced admissions in other jurisdictions. "Nevada is one of the most restrictive states in the entire nation," Williams said, and investigators who attended national conferences reported a roughly 50% success rate in obtaining admissions via recorded pretext calls.

Peg Samples, chief deputy district attorney at the Washoe County Child Advocacy Center, said the calls can help prosecutors and defense lawyers by providing an accurate, replayable record. "To have it on recorded tape is much more accurate to both parties," Samples said, adding the recordings can contain tone, pauses and inflection that notes do not capture.

Committee members pressed presenters on constitutional and procedural limits. Assembly member Amy Roth raised Fourth Amendment concerns and asked why the recordings should fall outside warrant requirements; Samples replied that 1-party consent statutes have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and that the bill is narrowly tailored to child-sex-abuse investigations. Williams and Samples said existing wiretap statutes require burdensome, costly procedures — including wiretap warrants that many local agencies cannot practically obtain for time-sensitive investigations — and that wiretap authority often captures unrelated third parties' communications.

Several members asked how children would be protected during such calls. Williams and Samples said case-by-case decisions would be made in coordination with child advocacy centers and victim advocates; Samples noted Washoe County provides immediate and continuing mental-health counseling and that sometimes a parent or guardian, not the child, makes the call depending on the child's developmental stage. The committee heard that "child" in practice refers to anyone 17 years of age or younger, but presenters said whether the child or a guardian participates depends on age and other case factors.

Opponents said the bill undermines judicial oversight. Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender's Office and Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender's Office testified that judges are the appropriate safeguard for intrusive recordings and that law enforcement can seek a warrant if probable cause exists. The ACLU of Nevada and other witnesses warned the proposal could be misused in family-law disputes and other noncriminal contexts.

Several law-enforcement organizations and prosecutors supported the bill, including the Nevada District Attorneys Association, the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the city of Henderson, which said recorded pretext calls are a common and effective investigative tool in other states and would help in cases that often lack physical evidence.

No committee vote was taken on AB275 at the hearing; the sponsor and presenters responded to questions and the committee took testimony from supporters and opponents before closing the hearing.