North Dakota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent

October 1, 2017Updated May 16, 202660 min read

North Dakota is a one-party consent state. Under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c), a person who is a party to a wire or oral communication, or who has prior consent from one of the parties, has a defense to the Class C felony interception charge under section 12.1-15-02(1)(a), provided the communication was not intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm. The federal floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) is congruent. (c1)(c25)

Violation of N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02 is a Class C felony under the penalty schedule at N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-32-01(4), punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. Disclosure or use of unlawfully intercepted contents under section 12.1-15-02(1)(b) is also a Class C felony. Secret loitering to overhear and republish a conversation under section 12.1-15-02(2) is a Class A misdemeanor with up to 360 days and a $3,000 fine. North Dakota's wiretap chapter does NOT contain a state-law civil cause of action; civil plaintiffs proceed under federal 18 U.S.C. 2520. (c2)(c3)(c25)

This page is the North Dakota recording-law hub on RecordingLaw.com. It walks the operative criminal statute at N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02, the definitions-only architecture of section 12.1-15-04 (and the no-state-civil-cause-of-action gap that follows from it), the visual-side bifurcation between section 12.1-20-12.1 (indecent exposure) and section 12.1-20-12.2 (surreptitious intrusion, the actual voyeurism statute), the NCII pair at section 12.1-17-07.2 (criminal, with an AI and deepfake hook) and chapter 32-49 (civil, UCRUDIIA, 2023 SB 2041), the 2025 AI-political-disclosure statute at chapter 16.1-10 (HB 1167), the Eighth Circuit record-the-police triad (Molina, Robbins, Chestnut), the body-camera and open-meeting framework at section 44-04-18.7(9) and section 44-04-19, the workplace overlay including Stericycle plus the GC 25-05 housekeeping correction plus GC 25-07, the federal overlay including the TAKE IT DOWN Act, and the FAQ block. See also the full list of one-party consent states and the counter-list of all-party consent states.

North Dakota is a one-party consent state. Under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c), a single party's consent satisfies the statute. If you are part of the conversation, you can record it without telling the other person. The criminal prohibition under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(1)(a) reaches the person who intentionally intercepts a wire or oral communication by use of an electronic, mechanical, or other device, but not the participant who records the communication they are themselves part of. (c1)(c2)

The textual basis is the defense at section 12.1-15-02(3)(c), which provides that it is a defense to a prosecution under subsection 1 that "(1) The actor was a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication had given prior consent to such interception, and (2) Such communication was not intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm." Both prongs must be satisfied. North Dakota's one-party rule mirrors the federal Wiretap Act floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) almost word for word, with the criminal-or-unlawful-harm proviso functioning the same way in both regimes. (c1)(c25)

The unlawful-harm proviso matters in practice. Recording a coworker to extort them is a recording made for the purpose of committing a crime, and the consent defense fails. Recording the same coworker to document harassment for an internal HR complaint is not criminal and is not undertaken for unlawful harm, so the defense applies and the recording remains lawful under section 12.1-15-02(3)(c). North Dakota's rule is structurally similar to its one-party-consent neighbors (Minnesota under Minn. Stat. 626A.02, South Dakota under SDCL 23A-35A-20, Wyoming, and Montana on the recording side after recent litigation) but stricter than the all-party rule that applies in some sister states. The interstate-call section below has the full breakdown.

A defining quirk distinguishes North Dakota from most other one-party-consent states. North Dakota's wiretap chapter does NOT contain a state-law civil cause of action for unlawful interception, disclosure, or use. Section 12.1-15-04 is definitions only. Civil plaintiffs cannot sue under a state-law wiretap theory; they must use the federal civil cause at 18 U.S.C. 2520 instead. The civil-remedies H2 below walks the consequences in detail. (c4)(c25)

Black Wi-Fi router with green status lights on a wooden side table in a softly lit living room, evoking the wire and oral communications scope of N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02 and the section 12.1-15-04(6) cellphone coverage gap

N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02: The Eavesdropping and Interception Statute

N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(1) defines the core felony. The statute reaches a person who intentionally:

Intercepts any wire or oral communication by use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. (Section 12.1-15-02(1)(a).)
Discloses to any other person, or uses, the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing that the information was obtained through interception of a wire or oral communication. (Section 12.1-15-02(1)(b).)

Each of those acts is a Class C felony under section 12.1-15-02(1). Subsection 2 adds a separate, lower-grade offense: a person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the person "secretly loiters about any building with intent to overhear discourse or conversation therein and to repeat or publish the same with intent to vex, annoy, or injure others." (c1)(c3)

The penalty schedule lives outside the chapter. N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-32-01(4) sets the Class C felony maximum at 5 years imprisonment and a fine of $10,000. Section 12.1-32-01(5) sets the Class A misdemeanor maximum at 360 days and a fine of $3,000. North Dakota's wiretap penalties do not use a graduated schedule the way Minnesota's gross-misdemeanor regime does; the offense is simply a Class C felony for interception and disclosure or use, and a Class A misdemeanor for the narrower secret-loitering offense. (c3)

Each act of interception, disclosure, or use is a separate offense. A defendant who intercepts a single conversation, then discloses the recording to a third party, then uses the disclosed contents in a civil dispute, faces three counts under section 12.1-15-02, even if the underlying interception was a single event.

Statutory Defenses to N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02

Section 12.1-15-02(3) provides three categorical defenses:

Common-carrier interception in the normal course of employment (section 12.1-15-02(3)(a)). A switchboard operator or telephone-company employee may intercept a wire communication where it is a necessary incident to service or to the protection of the carrier's rights or property, but may not "utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks."
Law-enforcement interception (section 12.1-15-02(3)(b)). A person acting under color of law may intercept a wire or oral communication when the person is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has given prior consent to the interception. This is North Dakota's consensual-monitoring exception for police investigations.
One-party consent (section 12.1-15-02(3)(c)). A person not acting under color of law may intercept when the actor is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has given prior consent, provided the communication was not intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm.

The one-party-consent defense at section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) is the operative rule for civilian recording in North Dakota. The law-enforcement defense at section 12.1-15-02(3)(b) is the operative rule for police consensual monitoring; it tracks the federal one-party-consent floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(c) and the DOJ Justice Manual section 9-7.302 internal-approval framework. (c1)(c30)

What Section 12.1-15-03 Is (and Is Not)

A recurring source of confusion in third-party summaries of North Dakota law is the identity of section 12.1-15-03. N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-03 is "Traffic in Intercepting Devices." It criminalizes the manufacture, assembly, possession, transportation, or sale of a device knowing that the design of the device renders it primarily useful to the purpose of surreptitious interception of wire or oral communications. The offense is a Class C felony in its own right. Section 12.1-15-03 is NOT the one-party-consent exceptions provision and is NOT a law-enforcement carve-out. The exceptions live inside section 12.1-15-02(3)(b) and (c). (c5)

What Section 12.1-15-04 Is (and Is Not)

N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-04 is the chapter's DEFINITIONS section. It defines "communications common carrier," "electronic, mechanical, or other device," "intercept," "investigative or law enforcement officer," "oral communication," and "wire communication." Section 12.1-15-04 is NOT a civil cause of action and is NOT an enforcement mechanism. There is no civil-remedies subsection in the entire chapter. Civil plaintiffs proceed under federal 18 U.S.C. 2520. (c4)

The two definitional choices that matter most for civilian recording are at section 12.1-15-04(5) (oral communication) and section 12.1-15-04(6) (wire communication). Both shape what a recording must look like to fall inside the statute at all.

What Sections 12.1-15-05 and 12.1-15-06 Are

N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-05 (Interception of correspondence) is a Class A misdemeanor for damaging, opening, reading, or divulging sealed paper mail before delivery without sender or receiver consent. It applies to physical letters, postal cards, and other written private correspondence. It is not an electronic-communications provision and does not reach email, text messages, or recorded audio. (c6)

N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-06 makes it a Class A misdemeanor to require an individual to have an RFID microchip implanted in their body. The statute reflects North Dakota's 2007 stance against compelled biometric implantation; it is included here for completeness because it sits inside Chapter 12.1-15, but it does not affect recording-consent analysis. (c7)

Section 12.1-15-04(5): The Reasonable-Expectation-of-Privacy Test for Oral Communications

Section 12.1-15-04(5) carries an explicit Katz-style reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test:

"'Oral communication' means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation."

N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-04(5)

The two-prong test requires the speaker to exhibit a subjective expectation of privacy AND for the circumstances to objectively justify that expectation. Private home conversations and conversations behind closed doors are typically covered. Open-air public-place conversations where bystanders can plainly overhear are typically not, and surreptitious recording of those conversations does not violate section 12.1-15-02 because the predicate communication is not a covered "oral communication" at all. (c4)

Section 12.1-15-04(6): The Cellphone-Coverage Gap

Section 12.1-15-04(6) defines "wire communication" as a communication made in whole or in part through facilities for the transmission of communications "by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of communications." That common-carrier-facilities language was drafted for the landline era and has not been updated to expressly cover direct cellphone-to-cellphone wireless transmission outside common-carrier facilities. North Dakota courts have not addressed whether a purely wireless cellular interception falls inside or outside the chapter. (c4)

The practical posture is conservative: treat cellphone calls as covered "wire communications" under section 12.1-15-04(6) and apply the section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) one-party-consent defense. The federal Wiretap Act at 18 U.S.C. 2510(1) was amended decades ago to expressly cover wireless communications, and the federal floor applies in North Dakota regardless. Treating cellphone calls as outside the statute would be a litigation gamble with felony stakes; the statutory gap is real but should be honestly disclosed rather than exploited.

Empty law library reading room with a brass desk lamp and an open book on a wooden table, evoking the civil cause of action gap under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-04 and the 18 U.S.C. 2520 federal civil hook

Penalties: Class C Felony, Class A Misdemeanor, and Civil Remedies

North Dakota's recording penalties stack along three tiers. The interception-and-disclosure tier under section 12.1-15-02(1)(a) and (b) is a Class C felony with a 5-year and $10,000 maximum under section 12.1-32-01(4). The secret-loitering-to-eavesdrop tier under section 12.1-15-02(2) is a Class A misdemeanor with a 360-day and $3,000 maximum under section 12.1-32-01(5). The device-trafficking tier under section 12.1-15-03 is a separate Class C felony with the same 5-year and $10,000 maximum. (c1)(c3)(c5)

The table below maps the relevant offenses, classifications, and penalty caps.

Offense	Statute	Classification	Maximum Penalty
Intentional interception of wire or oral communication	N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(1)(a)	Class C felony	5 years prison, $10,000 fine, or both
Intentional disclosure or use of unlawfully intercepted communication	N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(1)(b)	Class C felony	5 years prison, $10,000 fine, or both
Secret loitering to overhear with intent to vex, annoy, or injure	N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(2)	Class A misdemeanor	360 days jail, $3,000 fine, or both
Trafficking in intercepting devices	N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-03	Class C felony	5 years prison, $10,000 fine, or both
Interception of correspondence (paper mail)	N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-05	Class A misdemeanor	360 days jail, $3,000 fine, or both
Requiring implanted RFID microchip	N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-06	Class A misdemeanor	360 days jail, $3,000 fine, or both

The criminal-felony statute of limitations is three years under N.D. Cent. Code 29-04-02. The misdemeanor statute of limitations is two years under section 29-04-03. (c8)

The Civil-Cause-of-Action Gap

Chapter 12.1-15 has no civil cause of action. There is no analog to Minnesota's Minn. Stat. 626A.13, Iowa's Iowa Code 808B.8, or the federal 18 U.S.C. 2520 inside North Dakota law. Section 12.1-15-04 is definitions only. The result is that a North Dakota plaintiff whose communications were unlawfully intercepted cannot sue under state law for damages on a pure wiretap theory. (c4)

North Dakota plaintiffs proceed under federal 18 U.S.C. 2520, which provides:

Actual damages plus violator profits, or
Statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day per violation or $10,000, plus
Punitive damages in appropriate cases, plus
Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs, with
A two-year statute of limitations from the date the claimant first had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation. (c25)(c26)

Supplemental state-law claims may sit alongside the federal claim. North Dakota common-law intrusion-on-seclusion is an arguably available remedy for surreptitious recording in a private setting, but the tort is less developed in North Dakota than in some sister states and should not be treated as a primary recovery vehicle. Intentional infliction of emotional distress and the chapter 32-49 NCII civil cause of action are also potential overlays where their elements are met. Civil personal-injury non-contract claims carry a six-year statute of limitations under N.D. Cent. Code 28-01-16(5); libel and slander claims carry a two-year statute of limitations under section 28-01-18. (c8)

Two ceramic coffee cups on a small cafe table with a smartphone resting between them, evoking a participant recorded phone call under North Dakota one-party consent at N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c)

Recording Phone Calls in North Dakota (Including Interstate Calls)

You can record any phone call you participate in under North Dakota's one-party-consent rule at N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c). The recording must not be made for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm. This treatment applies to landline calls, cellular calls (treated as covered "wire communications" notwithstanding the section 12.1-15-04(6) common-carrier-facilities gap), VoIP calls (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Webex), and the audio portion of video calls. (c1)(c4)

Federal TCPA Overlay

Federal law imposes a separate overlay. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S.C. 227, implementing regulations at 47 C.F.R. Part 64, and FCC enforcement orders all sit alongside state recording law. Three updates from 2024 and 2025 matter for North Dakota practice:

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (CG Docket No. 23-362; adopted Feb. 2, 2024; released Feb. 8, 2024) holds that AI-generated voice calls fall within the TCPA's "artificial or prerecorded voice" restriction under 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A) and (B). The ruling is in force. AI-cloned voice calls into or out of North Dakota require prior express consent. (c27)
FCC 24-24 (the one-to-one consent rule revising 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(9)) was VACATED nationally by Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025), decided Jan. 24, 2025 with mandate issued Apr. 30, 2025. The pre-rule version of section 64.1200(f)(9) is reinstated. (c28)
47 C.F.R. 64.501 (the historic federal recording-disclosure framework, including the legacy "beep tone" notice convention often referenced in older state-by-state recording guides) was REMOVED effective Nov. 20, 2017 by the FCC's Modernizing Common Carrier Rules order (82 Fed. Reg. 48,766). Section 64.501 is NOT a live regulation. Older guidance citing a "beep tone" requirement under section 64.501 is obsolete. (c29)

A separate phantom-rule clarification is worth surfacing. Some third-party SEO summaries of North Dakota law have asserted that the North Dakota Public Service Commission maintains a state-level call-recording or beep-tone disclosure rule. The NDPSC does not. There is no NDPSC rule governing consensual call recording. The federal beep-tone framework is gone, and no North Dakota state-level analog has replaced it.

Interstate Calls

When a North Dakota party records a phone call with a participant in an all-party-consent state, the conservative practice is to comply with the stricter state's rule. The First Restatement of Conflict of Laws and several Federal Communications Commission rulings (along with circuit-level common-law analysis) treat the place where the recording is made or where the recorded party is located as relevant; courts in different circuits have reached different conclusions. The practical rule for North Dakota residents is to obtain affirmative consent before recording any call where a participant is in California (Cal. Penal Code 632), Florida (Fla. Stat. 934.03), Illinois (720 ILCS 5/14-2), Maryland (Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402), Massachusetts (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 section 99), New Hampshire (N.H. Rev. Stat. 570-A:2), Pennsylvania (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5704), or Washington (Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030), and in any other all-party jurisdiction.

Business Call Recording

North Dakota businesses can record customer-service or quality-assurance calls under the one-party-consent rule because the business or its employees are a party to the conversation. Many businesses still announce recording at the start of a call as a best practice, both to satisfy stricter-state callers and to maintain the federal TCPA "prior express consent" posture for any later automated or AI-voice follow-up. CFPB Regulation F under the FDCPA at 12 C.F.R. Part 1006 applies to debt collectors contacting North Dakota consumers; the underlying recording-consent rule is the state's one-party-consent default at section 12.1-15-02(3)(c). (c31)

Black lapel microphone clipped to a charcoal blazer in close-up, illustrating in-person oral-communication capture under the North Dakota participant safe harbor at N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c)

Recording In-Person Conversations and the Participation Rule

You can record in-person conversations you are part of under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c). Two threshold questions narrow the analysis:

Are you a party to the communication? If yes, the one-party-consent defense is potentially available. If no, the defense applies only if a party has given prior consent.
Is the communication a covered "oral communication" under section 12.1-15-04(5)? If the speaker exhibited no expectation of privacy and the circumstances did not justify one (an open-air conversation in a public square within earshot of bystanders), the communication is not covered and the statute is not violated.

Two scenarios mark the doctrinal edges. Recording a face-to-face conversation in your own living room with a person you invited in: you are a party, the conversation is in a private setting, and the one-party-consent defense applies. Result: lawful. Surreptitiously recording your neighbor's private phone call by leaving a digital recorder in their living room while they are not home: you are not a party, no party has consented, and the conversation occurred in a setting that objectively justifies an expectation of privacy. Result: Class C felony interception.

The criminal-or-unlawful-harm proviso at section 12.1-15-02(3)(c)(2) operates as a backstop. A participant who records a coworker explicitly to facilitate blackmail, extortion, identity fraud, or other criminal conduct loses the defense regardless of party status. Recording to gather evidence for a civil dispute, an employment claim, a custody proceeding, or a criminal complaint is not a "crime or other unlawful harm" and the defense remains available.

State v. Loh

The only North Dakota Supreme Court decision squarely on Chapter 12.1-15 consensual monitoring is State v. Loh, 2010 ND 66. In Loh, the court declined to follow Montana's then-recent decision in State v. Goetz, 2008 MT 296, holding that warrantless electronic monitoring of face-to-face conversations between a defendant and a wired confidential informant did NOT violate Article I section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution. The court's reasoning was that the North Dakota Constitution lacks Montana's explicit "right of individual privacy" clause and that the federal one-party-consent framework therefore controls. (c9)

Loh establishes that North Dakota's state constitution does not raise the wiretap-consent floor above the federal one-party-consent baseline. Civilian recording analysis under section 12.1-15-02(3)(c), and law-enforcement consensual-monitoring analysis under section 12.1-15-02(3)(b), both proceed against the federal floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(c) and (d). There is no North Dakota Article I section 8 enhancement to the chapter.

Professional broadcast camcorder mounted on a tripod in an empty studio with two studio lights, illustrating the surreptitious visual and audio capture prohibited by N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.2

Hidden Cameras, Ring Doorbells, and ND Surreptitious-Intrusion Laws

North Dakota's actual voyeurism and hidden-camera statute is N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.2, titled "Surreptitious intrusion." It is a Class A misdemeanor with a Class C felony enhancement on a second offense, on a prior section 12.1-20-12.1 conviction, on a sex-offender-registry trigger, or when the victim is a minor. Importantly, section 12.1-20-12.2 reaches BOTH visual capture (observing, photographing, recording) AND audio capture (amplifying, broadcasting sounds) from a dwelling, a hotel sleeping room, a tanning booth, or any other place where a reasonable individual would have an expectation of privacy. (c10)

A common third-party error is to label N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.1 as the voyeurism statute. It is not. Section 12.1-20-12.1 is INDECENT EXPOSURE. It targets the actor's own exposure of penis, vulva, or anus in a public place, to a minor, or by unsolicited electronic means. It is a Class A misdemeanor in its basic form and a Class C felony on enhancement. It is the actor-self-exposure offense, not the hidden-camera offense. (c11)

The statutory text of section 12.1-20-12.2 targets a particular mental state. The actor must act "with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify that individual's lust, passions, or sexual desires" or, under subsections (b) and (d), "with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy" of the victim. The intent element is what separates a security-camera installation in your own home from a felony hidden-camera offense. Installing a Ring doorbell aimed at your own front porch, with no audio capture in a bedroom or bathroom, is permitted; installing a hidden camera in a guest bedroom or rental-unit bathroom to record people who reasonably expect not to be recorded triggers section 12.1-20-12.2.

Ring, Nest, and Connected Doorbell Cameras

Audio capture by a Ring doorbell or similar connected camera at a front door is generally permissible. Visitors approaching a front door typically have no reasonable expectation of privacy under section 12.1-15-04(5), so the conversation is not a covered "oral communication," and the homeowner is a party to recordings of conversations they participate in (satisfying one-party consent under section 12.1-15-02(3)(c)).

The lines change at the property's interior. Audio or video capture inside a bathroom, bedroom, dressing room, or other space where occupants reasonably expect privacy can trigger section 12.1-20-12.2 if the actor's intent matches one of the statutory mental states. Audio capture inside a private space where a non-party expects privacy can trigger section 12.1-15-02 interception even without the sexual-gratification intent.

Vendor-Side Federal Overlay

The Federal Trade Commission's 2023 enforcement action against Ring (the connected-doorbell vendor) is a relevant federal overlay. The FTC alleged that Ring permitted employees and contractors to view, download, and disclose customers' private video, and that Ring failed to implement basic privacy and security safeguards. The 2023 settlement required Ring to pay $5.8 million in consumer redress, implement a comprehensive privacy and security program, and obtain affirmative express consent from customers before any human review of audio or video. North Dakota residents who use connected doorbells should review the vendor's privacy posture and verify that human-review consent toggles are configured as intended. (c32)

Three smartphones arranged around a blank sheet of paper on a wooden desk, evoking citizen documentation of police encounters under the Eighth Circuit Molina, Robbins, and Chestnut record-the-police triad

Recording Police, Public Officials, and Public Meetings in North Dakota: 8th Circuit Divergence

The Eighth Circuit, which includes North Dakota, has NOT recognized a clearly established First Amendment right to record police for qualified-immunity purposes. The most recent and most explicit decision is Molina v. Book, No. 21-1830 (8th Cir. Feb. 2, 2023), cert. denied Feb. 20, 2024. A 2-1 panel affirmed qualified immunity for officers on the First Amendment right-to-observe-and-record claims of plaintiffs Molina and Vogel, holding that the right was not clearly established in 2015. The case was "affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded," not a flat across-the-board dismissal; a third plaintiff's separate First Amendment retaliation claim involving distinct protected speech survived. (c12)

The Eighth Circuit's earlier two cases on the same question reinforce the divergence. In Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. Jan. 5, 2021), the panel affirmed qualified immunity on the First Amendment right-to-record claim (right not clearly established), but REVERSED qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims for false arrest and the 12-day phone-and-camera seizure (officers lacked probable cause; the lengthy seizure was unreasonable). In Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020), the panel affirmed denial of qualified immunity to an officer who detained and frisked the plaintiff for passively observing a traffic stop from a safe distance; the decision rested on Fourth Amendment grounds, NOT First Amendment grounds, and clearly established only the right of passive observation, not the right to record. (c13)(c14)

The doctrinal upshot: a North Dakota citizen who passively observes a police-citizen interaction from a safe distance has a clearly established Fourth Amendment shield under Chestnut. A North Dakota citizen who records the same interaction has, as of 2026-05-13, no clearly established First Amendment right at Eighth Circuit law. That is a material divergence from the 1st Circuit (Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)), the 3rd Circuit (Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017)), the 4th Circuit (Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023)), the 5th Circuit (Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017)), the 7th Circuit (ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012)), the 9th Circuit (Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995); Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018)), and the 11th Circuit (Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000)). North Dakota citizens have, on First Amendment damages claims against retaliating officers, doctrinally weaker footing than peer-state citizens in those circuits.

The practical takeaway is not that recording the police is illegal in North Dakota. The criminal one-party-consent rule at section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) still applies, and a citizen who records police in a public place where there is no covered "oral communication" expectation under section 12.1-15-04(5) commits no crime. What North Dakota citizens lack is a clearly established federal civil-rights claim if an officer retaliates against the recording. Use common sense, comply with lawful orders to step back, do not interfere, and treat documentation primarily as a self-protective record rather than as the basis of a First Amendment damages action.

Open-Meeting Right to Record

A counterweight to the Eighth Circuit divergence is North Dakota's express statutory right to record open public meetings. N.D. Cent. Code 44-04-19 provides that:

"The right of a person to attend a public meeting includes the right to photograph, audio-record, video-record, and broadcast live the portion of the meeting that is not held in executive session, subject only to reasonable limitations to avoid active interference with the conduct of the meeting."

N.D. Cent. Code 44-04-19

That express right covers city council meetings, county commission meetings, school board meetings, state legislative committee proceedings, and any other open meeting of a public body. The North Dakota Attorney General's Open Records and Meetings Guide provides the authoritative interpretive overlay. (c15)(c16)

Body-Worn Cameras

North Dakota does NOT have a statewide body-worn-camera operations statute. There is no retention floor, no activation mandate, and no statewide deletion or supervisory-review framework in state law. Activation, retention, deletion, supervisory review, and discipline are governed by individual agency policy. The North Dakota Highway Patrol operates an agency-wide body-worn-camera program supported by a 2023 federal Bureau of Justice Assistance Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program grant. (c17)

The state's body-camera framework on the records-access side is narrow. N.D. Cent. Code 44-04-18.7(9) classifies an image taken with a body camera or similar device in a PRIVATE place as an exempt record under the state Open Records Law. The exemption is discretionary, not mandatory: a private-place body-camera image may be released at agency discretion. Public-place body-worn-camera footage remains presumptively open. The North Dakota Attorney General's Open Records and Meetings Guide treats the exemption that way. (c15)(c16)

Blurred figures behind translucent glass conference-room doors in a modern office, evoking North Dakota workplace recording under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c) and the NLRB Stericycle plus GC 25-07 framework

Recording at Work: Employee and Employer Rules in North Dakota

North Dakota's one-party-consent rule at section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) extends to the workplace. An employee who is a party to a meeting with HR, a supervisor, or a coworker may record the conversation without telling other participants, provided the recording is not made for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm. An employer that is a party to a customer call may record the call under the same rule. (c1)

Several federal overlays narrow that baseline.

NLRB Stericycle

The National Labor Relations Board's controlling work-rule standard is Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023). Under Stericycle, an employer that adopts a facially neutral no-recording or no-photography rule must, to defend against a Section 8(a)(1) challenge, show that the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. A broad blanket prohibition is presumptively unlawful; a narrowly tailored rule (for example, prohibiting recording in HIPAA-covered patient-care areas, or recording of trade-secret production processes) can survive. (c20)

North Dakota is a right-to-work state under N.D. Const. art. XIV section 1 and N.D. Cent. Code chapter 34-01, but right-to-work does not strip the NLRB's jurisdiction over North Dakota private-sector employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act. Stericycle applies to North Dakota private-sector employers the same way it applies in non-right-to-work states.

NLRB GC 25-05 Is a Housekeeping Rescission

A common third-party mischaracterization is to treat NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025), issued by Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen, as a "Boeing-era reinstatement" or as a rollback of Stericycle. It is not. GC 25-05 rescinded numerous Biden-era General Counsel guidance memoranda on enforcement-prioritization grounds, citing case-backlog management. It did NOT overrule any Board precedent. Only the Board itself can overrule Stericycle. As of 2026-05-13, Stericycle remains controlling Board work-rule law, and North Dakota employers must continue to defend no-recording rules under the Stericycle framework. (c21)

NLRB GC 25-07 on Surreptitious Bargaining-Session Recording

NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) declares the surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3) of the NLRA (duty to bargain in good faith), building on the Board's 1978 decision in Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770. GC 25-07 is narrow. It does NOT address employee recording outside the bargaining-session context, and it does NOT change North Dakota's general one-party-consent rule for workplace audio under section 12.1-15-02(3)(c). It is a discrete bargaining-table prohibition. (c22)

Right to Record Wages, Safety, and Harassment

Independent of Stericycle, the Board has long held that an employee's recording of workplace conditions for protected concerted activity (documenting wage violations, safety hazards, or harassment) is protected under Section 7 of the NLRA. A North Dakota employee who quietly records a meeting to document harassment for an EEOC complaint is on solid one-party-consent ground under section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) and is exercising Section 7 rights subject to whatever narrowly tailored work-rule the employer has lawfully adopted under Stericycle.

Phantom Statutes North Dakota Does Not Have

North Dakota does NOT have:

A "North Dakota Workplace Privacy Act." This is a phantom statute label that appears in some third-party SEO blogs. No statute by that name exists in the North Dakota Century Code.
A "North Dakota Electronic Communications Privacy Act." Also a phantom label. Electronic-communications-privacy analysis in North Dakota is governed by federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2522 and by Chapter 12.1-15 of the Century Code.
A comprehensive consumer data protection act on the order of California's CCPA/CPRA, Colorado's CPA, Virginia's VCDPA, Connecticut's CTDPA, Utah, Texas, Oregon, Tennessee, Minnesota, or Iowa. North Dakota's biometric and data-breach framework is governed by sections 12.1-15-02, 12.1-20-12.2, 12.1-17-07.2, and the data-breach-notification chapter at N.D. Cent. Code chapter 51-30.
A BIPA-style biometric-information affirmative-consent act analogous to Illinois's 740 ILCS 14. Voiceprint and faceprint capture is governed by the general wiretap, voyeurism, and NCII statutes plus chapter 51-30.

If a third-party guide cites a "ND Workplace Privacy Act," a "ND ECPA," or an NDPSC call-recording rule as the basis for a recording-consent proposition, the guide is wrong. Send the reader back to N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02. (c4)(c33)

Hands typing on a black mechanical keyboard photographed top-down on a dark wood surface, evoking digital creation of synthetic intimate imagery under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-17-07.2 and the 2025 HB 1167 AI political disclosure statute at chapter 16.1-10

AI Voice Cloning, Deepfakes, and Intimate-Image Disclosure: 2025-2026 North Dakota Rules

North Dakota's AI and deepfake stack as of 2026-05-13 consists of one enacted political-disclosure statute, one criminal NCII statute with an explicit AI hook, one civil NCII chapter, and one failed general-deepfake bill that should be cited as a defining negative.

N.D. Cent. Code 16.1-10 (Use of Artificial Intelligence in Political Communications)

2025 N.D. HB 1167 added a new section to N.D. Cent. Code chapter 16.1-10 titled "Use of artificial intelligence - Disclosure - Definition." The statute requires the disclaimer "This content generated by artificial intelligence" on any political communication created in whole or in part with AI, including images, graphics, videos, audio, text, or other digital content used in support of or opposition to a candidate. (c18)

Procedural history: HB 1167 passed the House 93-0 and the Senate 46-0 (as amended). Governor Kelly Armstrong signed it on April 11, 2025. The default effective date is August 1, 2025. Violation of the disclosure requirement is a Class A misdemeanor under the Corrupt Practices Act. North Dakota is among a handful of states that have enacted an AI-political-disclosure statute as of 2026; the closer parallel jurisdictions are Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington on the political-content side.

2025 HB 1320 (General Deepfake Criminal Ban): FAILED

A separate 2025 bill, HB 1320, would have created a new section to N.D. Cent. Code chapter 12.1-31 prohibiting deepfake videos and images with criminal penalty. HB 1320 FAILED on House second reading by a vote of 17-69 on Jan. 21, 2025. It did not advance to the Senate. As of 2026-05-13, North Dakota has NO general deepfake criminal ban. The only AI-specific North Dakota criminal exposures live in the political-disclosure context of chapter 16.1-10 (HB 1167) and the "computer or computer-generated image" coverage in the criminal NCII statute at section 12.1-17-07.2. (c19)

N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-17-07.2 (Criminal NCII; Explicit AI Hook)

N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-17-07.2 is North Dakota's criminal nonconsensual-intimate-image statute, titled "Distribution of intimate images without or against consent." It is a Class A misdemeanor. The intimate-image definition reaches "any visual depiction, photograph, film, video, recording, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means." That "computer or computer-generated image" language is an explicit hook for AI-generated nonconsensual intimate images and deepfake-style synthetic intimate content. North Dakota does not need a stand-alone deepfake-NCII statute because section 12.1-17-07.2 already reaches synthetic and AI-generated intimate imagery on its face. (c23)

Chapter 32-49 (Civil NCII; UCRUDIIA; 2023 SB 2041)

N.D. Cent. Code chapter 32-49 is the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act, enacted by 2023 SB 2041 (68th Legislative Assembly). Chapter 32-49 simultaneously repealed predecessor N.D. Cent. Code 32-03-58 and provides a far more robust civil remedy. A prevailing plaintiff may recover the greater of (i) economic and noneconomic damages proximately caused by the defendant's disclosure or threatened disclosure, including emotional-distress damages, or (ii) statutory damages not to exceed $10,000 against each defendant. Additional remedies include disgorgement of any monetary gain made by the defendant, exemplary damages, reasonable attorney fees, costs, and injunctive relief. (c24)

The statute of limitations under section 32-49-06 is six years from the date the disclosure was discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The clock is tolled until age 18 for minor depicted individuals. The combined six-year discovery rule plus the tolling provision is meaningfully longer than the two-year libel-slander limitations period at N.D. Cent. Code 28-01-18 and substantially longer than the federal 18 U.S.C. 2520 two-year wiretap-civil window. (c8)

Sexual Extortion (N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.3)

A closely related criminal statute is N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.3, titled "Sexual extortion." It criminalizes threats to person, property, reputation, or threats to distribute, or enticement to delete, an intimate image, to coerce sexual conduct or distribution of intimate recordings. The basic offense is a Class A misdemeanor; the knowing-causation prong with a minor or vulnerable-adult victim is a Class B felony. Section 12.1-20-12.3 sits alongside section 12.1-17-07.2 and chapter 32-49 in the overall NCII framework. (c34)

Wireless earbuds in their open charging case on a white desk with a green status LED, illustrating AI voice calls under FCC 24-17 and federal TAKE IT DOWN Act covered-platform compliance

Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, NLRB, and TAKE IT DOWN Act

Federal law overlays North Dakota's chapter 12.1-15 framework. The four federal regimes that matter most for recording analysis are ECPA, FCC TCPA rules, NLRB Stericycle, and the 2025 TAKE IT DOWN Act.

ECPA (18 U.S.C. 2510-2522 and 2520)

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act sets the one-party-consent floor for wire, oral, and electronic communications at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). North Dakota's section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) is congruent with that floor. Both contain parallel criminal-or-unlawful-purpose carve-outs. (c25)

The civil overlay is 18 U.S.C. 2520. For North Dakota plaintiffs, this is the only civil cause of action for a pure wiretap-statute violation, because chapter 12.1-15 has no state-law civil cause. Section 2520 provides actual damages plus violator profits, statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day per violation or $10,000, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. The statute of limitations is two years from the date the claimant first had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation. (c25)(c26)

FCC TCPA Stack

The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S.C. 227 imposes a separate consent regime on automated and prerecorded calls and texts. Three 2024-2025 updates govern North Dakota practice:

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (released Feb. 8, 2024) brings AI-generated voice calls inside the TCPA's "artificial or prerecorded voice" restriction. Prior express consent is required. (c27)
Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025) (mandate Apr. 30, 2025) VACATED FCC Order 24-24 (the one-to-one consent rule). The pre-rule version of 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(9) is reinstated nationally. (c28)
47 C.F.R. 64.501 (historic recording-disclosure framework, including the "beep tone" notice convention) was REMOVED effective Nov. 20, 2017. (c29)

DOJ Justice Manual 9-7.302

For federal investigations in North Dakota (the District of North Dakota, U.S. Attorney's Office in Fargo and Bismarck), federal agents may record with one party's consent without a warrant under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(c), subject to DOJ Justice Manual section 9-7.302 internal-approval requirements for sensitive cases (calls involving members of Congress, the federal judiciary, the press, attorneys, religious officials, foreign officials, and the like). (c30)

TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146, 119th Cong., Pub. L. 119-12) was signed May 19, 2025. It criminalizes the knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated digital forgeries (deepfakes). Criminal provisions took effect on signing. Covered platforms must implement a 48-hour notice-and-removal procedure by May 19, 2026, which is 6 days from this refresh (2026-05-13). North Dakota victims of NCII or deepfake distribution can invoke the federal criminal regime under Pub. L. 119-12 alongside section 12.1-17-07.2 criminal liability, chapter 32-49 civil remedies, and the federal civil-rights overlay. (c35)

Audio recording equipment laid out on a dark surface in soft editorial lighting, evoking the authentication and admissibility framework for participant recordings under the North Dakota Rules of Evidence

Using Recordings as Evidence in North Dakota

Chapter 12.1-15 does not contain an express statutory exclusion provision for unlawfully intercepted recordings. Admissibility in North Dakota courts is governed by the North Dakota Rules of Evidence and federal constitutional doctrine. Recordings made in violation of chapter 12.1-15 are subject to suppression in criminal proceedings under standard exclusionary doctrine and may also expose the recording party to a separate Class C felony charge under section 12.1-15-02(1)(b) (use of unlawfully obtained contents).

Rule 901 governs authentication. A proponent may authenticate a recording through voice identification by a witness familiar with the speaker, chain-of-custody testimony, distinctive characteristics of the recording, or expert authentication for digital files. Rule 403 balances probative value against unfair prejudice. Rule 802 governs hearsay, with party-opponent admissions under Rule 801(d)(2) being the most common admissibility hook for recorded statements offered against the speaker.

In civil cases (divorce, custody, employment, defamation), North Dakota courts generally admit lawfully made participant recordings, subject to relevance, hearsay, and Rule 403 balancing. In criminal cases, the threshold question is chapter 12.1-15 compliance: a participant recording satisfying section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) is generally admissible; a third-party recording that violates section 12.1-15-02 typically is not. A common-law intrusion-on-seclusion claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 652 sits alongside chapter 12.1-15 and reaches conduct the statute does not, but as noted above the tort is less developed in North Dakota than in some sister states.

To increase the chance that a recording is accepted as evidence, preserve the original file with metadata intact, avoid any editing or splicing, document the date, time, location, and parties present at the time of the recording, and store the file securely with verifiable backups.

Specific Situations: Recording in Common North Dakota Scenarios

The one-party-consent rule at section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) governs the scenarios below. The visual overlays at section 12.1-20-12.2 and the NCII overlays at section 12.1-17-07.2 and chapter 32-49 add their own constraints where applicable.

Recording your landlord (lease disputes, repair conversations): Lawful for conversations you participate in. You cannot plant a device to record your landlord when you are not present.
Recording your doctor (medical appointments you attend): Lawful under section 12.1-15-02(3)(c). HIPAA at 45 C.F.R. Part 164 binds the covered entity (the doctor and the clinic) on provider-side use and disclosure, not the patient's self-recording. Some clinics adopt internal no-recording policies; those are private policies, not state law.
Recording your ex-spouse or co-parent (custody disputes, family law): Lawful for conversations you participate in. Do not record your children's private conversations through the children, and do not use the children as a covert recording instrument. Recordings used for harassment or intimidation could be characterized as made for a "crime or other unlawful harm" and lose the one-party-consent defense.
Using a dashcam in your vehicle: Lawful. Audio capture is subject to the one-party-consent rule, with the driver as the consenting party for any in-vehicle conversation the driver participates in. Mount the device so it does not obstruct your view of the road.
Recording Department of Human Services workers: Lawful for conversations you participate in. DHS workers are public employees but the recording analysis is the same as for any other in-person or telephonic conversation.
Recording a Zoom or video conference call: Lawful for calls you are a party to. If any participant is in an all-party-consent state (California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, plus the all-party-consent partial regimes), comply with the stricter rule by announcing the recording at the start.
AI voice recorders, Plaud-style devices, smart-glasses cameras: Lawful for conversations you participate in. The device type does not change the section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) analysis. Smart-glasses video capture is subject to section 12.1-20-12.2 in any private-place context.
Ring or Nest doorbell at your own front door: Lawful for audio of conversations with visitors at the front door (no covered "oral communication" under section 12.1-15-04(5); homeowner is a party under section 12.1-15-02(3)(c)). Indoor placement in bathrooms, bedrooms, or dressing areas can trigger section 12.1-20-12.2.

For deeper walkthroughs, see Can an employer record conversations without consent (NLRB Stericycle plus the GC 25-05 housekeeping correction plus GC 25-07 bargaining-session per se), Can you record police officers on duty (national circuit-by-circuit framework, including the Eighth Circuit Molina-Robbins-Chestnut triad), Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent (section 12.1-20-12.2 plus section 12.1-17-07.2 plus chapter 32-49), Photo and video consent form, and the DMCA takedown notice generator (NCII and TAKE IT DOWN Act notice-and-removal). For the parent hub and counter-list, see United States recording laws, one-party consent states, and all-party consent states.

North Dakota Recording Laws by Topic

Each of the 12 pages below covers a specific North Dakota recording-law context in greater depth than this hub can. Use them to drill into the rule that applies to your situation.

Frequently Asked Questions About North Dakota Recording Laws

Disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about recording laws in North Dakota. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Recording laws are jurisdiction-specific, fact-specific, and subject to legislative amendment and judicial reinterpretation. The information here was verified on May 13, 2026, against the North Dakota Century Code, the North Dakota Attorney General's Open Records and Meetings Guide, the Eighth Circuit and other federal appellate opinions cited, the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and National Labor Relations Board guidance. For advice on a specific situation, consult a lawyer licensed in North Dakota.

Sources and References

()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()

Is North Dakota a One-Party Consent State? The Short Answer

N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02: The Eavesdropping and Interception Statute