The GPS Unit and the Client's Request
Dana is a licensed Nevada PI hired by a wife in a contested divorce. The wife asks Dana to attach a GPS tracker to her husband's pickup truck. The truck is titled and registered solely in the husband's name and is parked in his driveway. The wife says she has a key to the truck and sometimes drives it, but her name is not on the title. The wife also wants Dana to call the husband while posing as a garage-door repairman and record the call to get him to admit he is hiding income. Dana considers conducting surveillance from the neighbor's fenced backyard, which has a clear view of the husband's patio, and photographing through the husband's sliding glass door. Dana asks you to review the plan before any work begins.
1. May Dana attach the GPS tracker to the husband's truck based on the wife's request?
Read the worked answer
Nevada's electronic tracking statute, NRS 200.604, generally makes it unlawful to install or place a GPS tracking device on a vehicle without the consent of the owner or operator. The truck is titled and registered solely to the husband. The wife's occasional use or possession of a key does not make her the owner, and Dana would not have the operator's consent at the time of installation. The wife cannot consent on the husband's behalf. Dana should refuse the GPS request. If the wife later obtains a court order or the husband consents in writing, the analysis changes, but a private divorce client's request is not authority. Installing the device could expose Dana to criminal liability and Board discipline, and any evidence derived from it could be challenged.
2. Can Dana record the pretext call while posing as a repairman? Discuss the recording law and the ethical issue.
Read the worked answer
Nevada is a one-party-consent state under NRS 200.620, so Dana may record a conversation if Dana is a party to it or has a party's consent. On that narrow point, Dana could record his own call with the husband. But posing as a garage-door repairman is a separate problem: the deception is designed to induce statements, and it may violate the Board's ethics standards and damage the case if challenged. Dana should not impersonate a repairman or any other person, should not claim to be law enforcement or an insurer, and should identify the purpose of the call if required. A better approach is to use lawful public records, surveillance, and interviews without false pretenses, and to document exactly what was said and by whom.
3. What are the limits on Dana's proposed surveillance from the neighbor's yard and photography through the glass door?
Read the worked answer
Dana may observe from public vantage points, but the neighbor's fenced backyard is private property; entering it without permission is trespass, and the neighbor's consent-not the wife's-would be required. Photographing through the husband's sliding glass door into his home raises serious privacy concerns and may violate Nevada's peeping or privacy statutes, especially if the husband has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Dana should stay on public streets or other lawful public areas, use normal lenses, avoid trespass, and avoid capturing intimate or private activity. If the husband is in his yard visible from the street, limited photography may be defensible, but the plan as described is not. Dana should document the lawful vantage point and stop if asked to leave.