North Dakota Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)

Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in North Dakota, but recording with them carries legal responsibilities tied to the state's one-party consent rule. Under N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02(3)(c), you may record any conversation you are a party to without notifying the other participants, provided the audio capture is not made for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm. Recording in private spaces where people expect visual privacy remains a separate criminal offense regardless of consent.

Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in North Dakota?

Yes. North Dakota has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is freely sold throughout the state and its mere possession raises no legal issue under North Dakota or federal law.

The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. The outcome depends on the content being recorded, the location, your role in any conversation being captured, and the purpose behind the recording.

Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces

Public spaces

Recording video in a public space is lawful in North Dakota under both state and federal law. When a person is in a publicly accessible location (on a street, sidewalk, in a park, at a sporting event, or in a government building open to the public) they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act's definition of an "oral communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) covers only communications uttered under circumstances that justify a reasonable expectation against interception. Silent video capture in public does not trigger the federal statute. North Dakota law follows the same principle.

Smart glasses worn at an outdoor market, on a university campus, in a public street, or at a government proceeding generally create no legal exposure from video capture alone, provided the wearer is not recording in a way designed to capture intimate areas.

Semi-public and private spaces

The legal picture shifts in semi-public or fully private spaces. A private home, a hotel room, a medical office, or a closed conference room carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible to others, such as a workplace break room or a quiet corner booth in a restaurant during a one-on-one conversation, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of spoken words exchanged there.

Under the test set out in Justice Harlan's concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), a reasonable expectation of privacy requires both an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. North Dakota courts apply this same framework when evaluating whether a location or conversation is "private" within the meaning of the state's surveillance and surreptitious-intrusion statutes.

Recording in private places

North Dakota Code § 12.1-20-12.2 (surreptitious intrusion) is the state's voyeurism statute. It requires proof that the actor was motivated by the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify sexual desire. The statute targets peeping into dwellings after entering the property, and installing recording devices in spaces such as tanning booths or hotel rooms where the occupant is or is likely to be partially unclothed. Smart glasses worn in a locker room or hotel room for any sexually motivated purpose fall squarely within it. A first offense is a Class A misdemeanor; a second offense, a prior indecent-exposure conviction, an existing sex-offender registration obligation, or a minor victim elevates the offense to a Class C felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.

Recording Audio and North Dakota's One-Party Consent Rule

This is the load-bearing legal issue for smart glasses users in North Dakota.

The statute: N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02

N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02 is North Dakota's wiretapping and eavesdropping statute. Section 12.1-15-02(1)(a) sets out the general prohibition: a person is guilty of a Class C felony if he intentionally intercepts any wire or oral communication by use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

Section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) provides the one-party consent defense: it is a defense to a prosecution under subsection 1 that the actor was a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication had given prior consent to the interception, and the communication was not intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm.

In practice, this means a person wearing smart glasses who is part of a conversation may lawfully record that conversation in North Dakota without disclosing the recording to the other participants. The wearer's participation is itself the required consent.

What the one-party rule covers

Under § 12.1-15-02(3)(c), the one-party consent rule applies when:

• The smart glasses wearer is an active participant in the conversation being recorded, whether in person or over a phone or video call.
• The recording is not intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm against another party.

The practical consequence is significant. An employee recording a meeting with a supervisor, a consumer recording a call with a business, or a person recording an in-person conversation with a neighbor may do so lawfully in North Dakota without advance disclosure, provided the purpose of the recording is not itself illegal or harmful.

The crime-or-unlawful-harm purpose limit

North Dakota's one-party consent defense includes a critical qualifier, and its wording is narrower than the federal baseline at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), which excludes recordings made for a 'criminal or tortious' purpose. North Dakota's statute instead excludes communications intercepted for the purpose of committing 'a crime or other unlawful harm,' which is not limited to conduct that independently qualifies as a criminal offense or a tort. Consent-based recording made for that purpose against any party to the communication falls outside the protection entirely. Recording to stalk, blackmail, extort, or harass another person would not be shielded by the one-party exception regardless of the wearer's own participation in the conversation.

This qualifier is not merely advisory. If the recording is made with a harmful purpose, the conduct reverts to unlawful interception under § 12.1-15-02(1)(a), a Class C felony.

What one-party consent does not cover

The one-party defense applies when the recorder is a party to the communication or one of the parties gave prior consent to the recording. It does not protect:

• Using smart glasses to record a private conversation between two other people that the wearer is not part of, when neither of them has consented.
• Secretly capturing oral communications of others in a private space where the wearer has no legitimate reason to be present.
• Recording from a public sidewalk through a window into a private residence to capture conversations inside.
• Recording with the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm against another person.

Recording the private conversations of others without participation and without any party's prior consent is an unlawful interception under § 12.1-15-02(1)(a) and a Class C felony.

Practical application

For a smart glasses wearer in North Dakota, the one-party consent rule means:

• Recording a conversation you are actively having with someone (at work, at home, over the phone, or in person) is lawful. You are a party. No disclosure to the other participants is required.
• Recording the private conversation of two other people you are not participating in, without either one's prior consent, is unlawful and felony-level conduct.
• Recording your own video content in public with no conversation being captured raises no audio consent issue at all.

For a complete analysis of North Dakota's consent framework, see the North Dakota Recording Laws page.

Where You Cannot Record: Surreptitious Intrusion and the Voyeurism Statute

Regardless of consent rules, North Dakota law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct.

N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-20-12.2: Surreptitious Intrusion

Section 12.1-20-12.2 is North Dakota's voyeurism statute. It applies when a person acts "with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify that individual's lust, passions, or sexual desires." That sexual-intent element is load-bearing: a recording in a private space made for a non-sexual purpose (say, security documentation) does not automatically fall under this statute, though other civil or criminal theories may still apply.

The statute targets four categories of conduct: (a) entering another's property and surreptitiously peeping into a house or dwelling; (b) entering another's property and installing or using a recording device to observe a dwelling; (c) peeping into a tanning booth, hotel sleeping room, or similar space where the occupant is or is likely to be partially unclothed; and (d) installing or using a recording device in the same types of enclosed private spaces. Smart glasses worn in a locker room, hotel room, or tanning booth to satisfy sexual curiosity fit squarely within categories (c) and (d).

A first offense under § 12.1-20-12.2 is a Class A misdemeanor, carrying up to 360 days imprisonment and a fine of up to $3,000. The offense escalates to a Class C felony (up to 5 years, $10,000 fine) when the offender has a prior conviction under § 12.1-20-12.2, has a prior conviction for indecent exposure under § 12.1-20-12.1, is already required to register under the sex-offender registry statute (§ 12.1-32-15), or when the victim is a minor.

Locations where § 12.1-20-12.2 is most relevant

The statute targets spaces where individuals are partially unclothed and would have no expectation of being photographed or filmed: tanning booths, hotel sleeping rooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, and fitting rooms fall within the express categories. Private residences and hotel rooms also fit the dwelling-entry provisions in subsections (a) and (b).

Critically, the statute requires sexual intent. A person who uses smart glasses in a locker room for any purpose connected to arousal or sexual gratification commits a Class A misdemeanor on a first offense. The covert form factor of smart glasses does not create any defense. A device indistinguishable from ordinary eyewear is well-suited to the furtive conduct the statute targets.

Federal law adds a parallel floor. 18 U.S.C. § 1801, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, separately prohibits recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The federal statute does not include a sexual-intent element, so it provides broader coverage on federal property regardless of motive.

Secret loitering to overhear

A related provision, § 12.1-15-02(2), separately criminalizes secret loitering near the premises of another with the intent to overhear conversations and to repeat or publish them with intent to vex, annoy, or injure another person. This offense is a Class A misdemeanor. A smart glasses wearer who positions themselves outside a residence or business specifically to capture conversations inside, even without physically entering, could face exposure under this provision in addition to unlawful interception.

Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy

North Dakota has no dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), or Washington's biometric identifier law (RCW Chapter 19.375).

North Dakota does not impose per-person statutory damages for unauthorized face-geometry scans. There is no North Dakota law requiring consent before capturing a biometric identifier, and there is no private right of action for biometric data collection in the state. Under North Dakota law alone, using smart glasses with a facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not create the same direct statutory-damages risk that exists in Illinois ($1,000 to $5,000 per person per violation under BIPA) or the AG-enforcement exposure that exists in Texas (up to $25,000 per violation under CUBI).

That does not mean North Dakota residents are without recourse. Common-law privacy torts apply regardless of statute. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (intrusion upon seclusion), an intentional intrusion upon someone's solitude or private affairs in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability even if no footage is ever shared. The act of covert recording is itself the intrusion. Publication is not required for civil liability to attach.

The practical risk is greatest through third-party software integrations. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses provide a camera but do not natively run facial recognition. The legal exposure arises when a user pairs the glasses with a third-party reverse facial-recognition application. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system, pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a facial-recognition search engine to identify strangers in real time and retrieve their home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes. That demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. North Dakota users who build or use similar integrations face civil tort liability and, if the footage is used to stalk or harass, criminal exposure under North Dakota's stalking and harassment statutes.

If a North Dakota smart glasses user captures the face of a person who is an Illinois, Texas, or Washington resident, those states' biometric laws may reach the conduct regardless of where the recording occurs. Consulting an attorney is warranted before any commercial deployment of facial recognition in North Dakota.

Penalties Summary

North Dakota does not provide a separate state civil cause of action for wiretap violations. Injured parties must pursue civil remedies under the federal Wiretap Act at 18 U.S.C. § 2520. Federal civil remedies include the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits or $100 per day of violation with a minimum of $10,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees when appropriate.

Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in North Dakota

Confirm you are a participant before recording audio. North Dakota's one-party consent rule under § 12.1-15-02(3)(c) protects a participant in a conversation, or a non-participant who has one party's prior consent. If the other person is addressing you directly and you are exchanging words with them, you are a participant and the one-party rule applies. If you are positioning the glasses to capture a nearby conversation that does not involve you and no party has consented, you are outside the defense and face Class C felony exposure under § 12.1-15-02(1)(a).

Keep the purpose of any recording lawful. The consent defense in § 12.1-15-02(3)(c) expressly fails if the recording is intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm. Recordings made to stalk, harass, blackmail, or otherwise harm another person fall outside the protection regardless of participation. Keep the purpose clearly within lawful bounds.

Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in white capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. North Dakota law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearable devices, but deliberately covering the LED removes the only visible signal that recording is occurring. If a dispute arises, covering the LED strengthens evidence of non-consensual covert recording intent.

Disclose before sensitive meetings. North Dakota law does not require you to disclose recordings of conversations you are part of, but disclosing at the outset of any formal or sensitive meeting (a job interview, a medical appointment, a legal consultation, or a personnel discussion) eliminates any ambiguity about consent, avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion exposure entirely, and protects the admissibility of the recording if you later need to use it.

Remove glasses in locker rooms, tanning booths, and hotel rooms. Section 12.1-20-12.2 targets voyeurism with a sexual-intent element, but the practical risk is severe. Any recording in these spaces is likely to be characterized as sexually motivated in any investigation or prosecution, and federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1801) provides a parallel prohibition on federal property without a sexual-intent requirement. The safest rule is to remove smart glasses entirely before entering any space where people are partially unclothed or have a strong expectation of privacy from visual observation.

Watch for cross-border calls. North Dakota's one-party consent rule governs calls where both parties are in North Dakota. When either party to a call is located in an all-party consent state, the stricter law of the other state may apply. Neighboring Minnesota, to the east, is also a one-party consent state under Minn. Stat. 626A.02, subd. 2(d). When in doubt about the location of the other party, disclosing that you are recording is always the safest approach.

Understand the federal civil floor. Because North Dakota has no state civil remedy for wiretap violations, litigation risk under state law falls on the criminal side. But federal civil exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 is real and independent of any criminal prosecution. A single unlawful interception can expose a North Dakota resident to federal civil liability of at least $10,000 per violation, plus attorney fees and punitive damages. The absence of a state civil remedy does not mean there is no private-party litigation risk.

More North Dakota Laws

• North Dakota Data Privacy Laws
• North Dakota Deepfake Laws
• North Dakota Drone Laws
• North Dakota Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is North Dakota a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?

North Dakota is a one-party consent state under N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02(3)(c). If you are a participant in a conversation, you may record it without notifying the other parties. The consent defense does not apply if the recording is intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm.

Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in North Dakota without telling the other person?

Yes, provided you are a genuine participant in the conversation. N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02(3)(c) permits a party to the communication to record it without the knowledge of the other participants. You may not record conversations you are not part of unless one of the parties has given prior consent, and the purpose of the recording must be lawful.

What is the penalty for illegal recording in North Dakota?

Unlawfully intercepting a wire or oral communication under § 12.1-15-02(1)(a) is a Class C felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Disclosing or using an unlawfully intercepted communication under § 12.1-15-02(1)(b) carries the same Class C felony penalty. North Dakota has no separate state civil remedy; federal civil liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 provides at least $10,000 in statutory damages per unlawful interception.

Can I secretly film someone with smart glasses in North Dakota?

In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful. North Dakota's surreptitious-intrusion statute (§ 12.1-20-12.2) requires proof of sexual intent ('lust, passions, or sexual desires'). Where that intent is present, recording in hotel rooms, tanning booths, locker rooms, or other spaces where the occupant is or may be partially unclothed is a Class A misdemeanor on a first offense and a Class C felony on a second offense, with a prior indecent-exposure conviction, if sex-offender registration is already required, or if the victim is a minor. The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any defense.

Does North Dakota have a biometric privacy law for smart glasses?

No. North Dakota has no dedicated biometric privacy statute. There is no per-person statutory damages regime comparable to Illinois BIPA and no AG-enforcement regime comparable to Texas CUBI. However, common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion torts apply regardless of statute. Using smart glasses with facial-recognition software to identify people in North Dakota can still create civil tort exposure even without a biometric statute.

Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal to use in North Dakota?

The device is legal to own and wear. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and your role in any conversation you capture. Meta's capture LED provides an external recording indicator. North Dakota law does not mandate its use, but deliberately covering it strengthens evidence of covert non-consensual recording intent if a dispute arises.

Can North Dakota residents sue for wiretap violations in state court?

North Dakota does not provide a state civil cause of action for wiretap violations. Injured parties must use the federal civil remedy under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, which provides the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits or $100 per day of violation with a minimum recovery of $10,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees when appropriate.

Can I record police officers with smart glasses in North Dakota?

Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. As a participant in any encounter (a traffic stop or a public-street interaction), North Dakota's one-party consent rule also permits audio recording of that encounter. You cannot use the glasses to record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with any law enforcement activity.

Does the secret-loitering provision of North Dakota law affect smart glasses use?

N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02(2) makes it a Class A misdemeanor to secretly loiter near the premises of another with the intent to overhear conversations and to repeat or publish them with intent to vex, annoy, or injure another person. A smart glasses wearer who positions themselves specifically to capture conversations occurring inside a private residence or office without entering, intending to repeat or publish what they hear to vex, annoy, or injure someone, could face exposure under this provision, in addition to unlawful-interception liability.