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

North Dakota is a one-party consent state under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c). If you are a party to the conversation, you can record it without telling anyone else. Recording a conversation you are not part of, without any party's consent, violates section 12.1-15-02(1)(a), a Class C felony carrying up to five years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Violations also expose the recorder to civil liability under federal 18 U.S.C. 2520, because North Dakota's wiretap chapter contains no state-law civil cause of action.

North Dakota recording law at a glance

For a closer look at any of these rules, jump to the in-depth guide index at the bottom of this page.

Recording in-person conversations in North Dakota

North Dakota's consent rule is found in N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c). A person who is a party to a wire or oral communication may record it without notifying other participants, as long as the recording is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. That two-prong condition (party status plus lawful purpose) is the full test for civilian recording.

The "oral communication" definition in section 12.1-15-04(5) adds a threshold filter. The statute only covers communications "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." A private conversation at home clearly qualifies. An open-air exchange on a busy street corner, easily overheard by bystanders, may not qualify as a covered "oral communication" at all, meaning recording it raises no issue under section 12.1-15-02 in the first place.

The unlawful-purpose carve-out matters practically. Recording a coworker to document an HR complaint is not a criminal purpose, and the defense applies. Recording the same coworker to facilitate extortion is a criminal purpose, and the defense fails even though you are a party to the conversation. The North Dakota Supreme Court confirmed this federal-floor analysis in State v. Loh, 2010 ND 66, holding that the state constitution does not raise the consent bar above the federal one-party baseline at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d).

North Dakota's one-party rule mirrors federal law closely. When a party intercepts with no unlawful purpose, both the state and federal regimes are satisfied simultaneously.

Recording phone calls in North Dakota

The same one-party rule applies to phone calls. A party to any landline, cell, VoIP, or video call may record it without announcing the recording. The underlying statute is the same section 12.1-15-02(3)(c), and the unlawful-purpose limit is the same.

For interstate calls, the conservative rule is to comply with the stricter state's law. If one participant is in California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Washington (all all-party states), notify everyone at the outset. A North Dakota resident who does not will be lawful under North Dakota law but potentially liable under the other state's law.

The federal "beep tone" notice requirement under 47 C.F.R. 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017. There is no federal or North Dakota state-level beep-tone rule in force today, and no North Dakota Public Service Commission recording rule exists. Any source citing such a rule is citing an obsolete or phantom standard.

For details on recording rules in specific call contexts, see the North Dakota Phone Call Recording Laws sub-page.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

North Dakota's hidden-camera statute is N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.2, titled "Surreptitious intrusion." It reaches both visual capture (observing, photographing, recording) and audio capture (amplifying, broadcasting sounds) from a dwelling, hotel sleeping room, tanning booth, or other place where a person reasonably expects privacy. The base offense is a Class A misdemeanor (up to 360 days, $3,000 fine). Enhancement to a Class C felony (up to 5 years, $10,000 fine) applies on a second offense, after a prior section 12.1-20-12.1 conviction, on a sex-offender-registry trigger, or when the victim is a minor.

A common error in third-party summaries: section 12.1-20-12.1 is indecent exposure (the actor's own exposure of genitalia in a public place or to a minor), not voyeurism. Section 12.1-20-12.2 is the actual hidden-camera and voyeurism statute.

The intent element in section 12.1-20-12.2 is what separates lawful security cameras from felony voyeurism. The actor must have either sexual-gratification intent or intent to intrude on privacy. A Ring doorbell aimed at your own front porch, capturing conversations with visitors who have no expectation of privacy in a public-facing area, does not trigger the statute under normal use. A hidden camera installed in a guest bedroom or rental bathroom does.

One additional audio caveat: a camera that records conversations inside a private space (where participants expect privacy) may independently trigger section 12.1-15-02's interception prohibition, even without a sexual-intent element. Both statutes can apply to the same device in a private setting.

For deeper coverage, see the North Dakota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and North Dakota Security Camera Laws sub-pages.

Penalties for illegal recording in North Dakota

Criminal and civil penalties occupy separate tracks in North Dakota because the wiretap chapter has no civil cause of action.

Criminal track:

Interception, disclosure, and use are each separate offenses. A person who intercepts a single call and then shares the recording with a third party has committed two Class C felonies.

Civil track:

North Dakota's wiretap chapter (Chapter 12.1-15) contains no civil cause of action. Section 12.1-15-04 is definitions only. A plaintiff whose communications were unlawfully intercepted must sue under federal 18 U.S.C. 2520, which provides the greater of actual damages plus violator profits, $100 per day per violation, or $10,000 statutory damages, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees, with a two-year statute of limitations from the date of reasonable discovery.

Supplemental claims may also lie: common-law intrusion on seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or the chapter 32-49 civil NCII cause of action where the facts support those theories.

Recording the police in North Dakota

Recording police in a public space is not criminally prohibited under North Dakota law. A citizen who records officers during a public encounter is a party to the communication (or the communication is not a covered "oral communication" at all in an open-air setting), and no North Dakota statute bars photography or video recording in public.

The civil-rights posture is materially weaker in the Eighth Circuit than elsewhere. The Eighth Circuit has not recognized a clearly established First Amendment right to record police for qualified-immunity purposes. Molina v. Book, No. 21-1830 (8th Cir. Feb. 2, 2023; cert. denied Feb. 20, 2024), affirmed qualified immunity for officers on First Amendment right-to-record claims, holding the right was not clearly established in 2015. Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), similarly upheld qualified immunity on the First Amendment recording claim. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020), clearly established only the Fourth Amendment right of passive observation, not the right to record.

This diverges from the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, which have all recognized some clearly established right to record police. In practical terms, a North Dakota citizen who records police in public commits no crime but carries weaker ground for a federal civil-rights damages claim if an officer retaliates.

The counterweight is North Dakota's open-meeting statute. N.D. Cent. Code 44-04-19 grants an express statutory right to photograph, audio-record, video-record, and broadcast live the non-executive-session portion of any open public meeting, subject only to reasonable restrictions to avoid active interference with the meeting's conduct.

For more, see the North Dakota Laws on Recording Police sub-page.

Special topics in North Dakota

Workplace recording (NLRB overlay)

North Dakota's one-party rule extends to the workplace: an employee who is a party to a meeting may record it without disclosure. The NLRB's Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), governs employer no-recording work rules. Under Stericycle, a broad blanket prohibition is presumptively unlawful; the employer must show the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. Stericycle remains controlling law despite NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025), which was only a housekeeping rescission of prior GC memoranda and did not reinstate the earlier Boeing standard or overrule Stericycle. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) separately declared surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se unfair-labor-practice violation, but that is narrowly scoped to the bargaining table and does not change the general one-party workplace rule.

AI, deepfakes, and political content

North Dakota enacted 2025 HB 1167, adding a new section to N.D. Cent. Code chapter 16.1-10 requiring the disclaimer "This content generated by artificial intelligence" on any political communication created in whole or in part with AI. Governor Armstrong signed it April 11, 2025, with a default effective date of August 1, 2025. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor under the Corrupt Practices Act. A companion bill, HB 1320 (general deepfake criminal ban), failed on House second reading 17-69 on January 21, 2025, so North Dakota has no general deepfake criminal statute outside the political-disclosure context.

Nonconsensual intimate images (NCII) and the TAKE IT DOWN Act

N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-17-07.2 criminalizes distribution of intimate images without consent, at the Class A misdemeanor level, with an intimate-image definition that explicitly includes "computer or computer-generated image or picture" (an AI and deepfake hook). The companion civil cause of action is N.D. Cent. Code chapter 32-49 (Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act; 2023 SB 2041), which provides statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant, monetary-gain disgorgement, exemplary damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief, with a six-year statute of limitations from discovery (tolled until age 18 for minors). The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), overlays federal criminal liability for knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated deepfakes, and requires covered platforms to implement 48-hour notice-and-removal procedures by May 19, 2026.

Body-worn cameras and open records

North Dakota has no statewide body-worn-camera operations statute, retention floor, or activation mandate. Agency policy governs. On the records side, N.D. Cent. Code 44-04-18.7(9) classifies body-camera footage taken in a private place as an exempt record under the Open Records Law, but the exemption is discretionary (not mandatory), so release remains possible at agency discretion. Public-place footage is presumptively open.

Federal overlay (ECPA and TCPA)

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) sets the one-party-consent floor that North Dakota's section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) matches. The civil remedy at 18 U.S.C. 2520 is North Dakota wiretap plaintiffs' only civil hook, for the reasons described in the penalties section. On the FCC-TCPA side, FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) holds that AI-generated voice calls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" calls under 47 U.S.C. 227, requiring prior express consent. FCC Order 24-24 (the one-to-one consent rule) was vacated nationally by Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025).

Recent legal developments

• August 1, 2025: HB 1167 effective date, mandating AI-content disclosure on North Dakota political communications (signed April 11, 2025).
• May 19, 2025: Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) signed; criminal provisions immediate; platform 48-hour removal requirement effective May 19, 2026.
• June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 declares surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se unfair labor practice.
• April 30, 2025: 11th Circuit mandate in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC vacating FCC's one-to-one consent rule; pre-rule 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(9) reinstated.
• February 20, 2024: Supreme Court denied certiorari in Molina v. Book, leaving the 8th Circuit's no-clearly-established-right posture intact.
• January 21, 2025: ND HB 1320 (general deepfake criminal ban) failed House second reading 17-69; North Dakota remains without a general deepfake statute.
• August 2, 2023: NLRB issued Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113, setting the current employer work-rule standard.
• 2023: Chapter 32-49 (Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act) enacted by 2023 SB 2041.

North Dakota recording laws in depth

The pages below each cover a specific recording context in detail.

By type of recording

• North Dakota Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
• North Dakota Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide (2026)
• North Dakota Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Filming, and Privacy Rules (2026)
• North Dakota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (2026)
• North Dakota Dashcam Laws: Mounting, Audio, and Evidence Rules (2026)

By place or relationship

• North Dakota Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026)
• North Dakota Laws on Recording Police: Your Constitutional Rights (2026)
• North Dakota Public Recording Laws: Filming Rights in Public Spaces (2026)
• North Dakota School Recording Laws: Students, Parents, and Teacher Rights (2026)
• North Dakota Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights for Renters and Landlords (2026)
• North Dakota Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules (2026)
• North Dakota Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026)

More North Dakota laws

• North Dakota Alimony Laws
• North Dakota At-Will Employment Laws
• North Dakota Child Custody Laws
• North Dakota Divorce Laws
• North Dakota Expungement Laws

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed North Dakota attorney.

More North Dakota Laws

• North Dakota AI Meeting Recording Laws
• North Dakota Alimony Laws
• North Dakota At-Will Employment Laws
• North Dakota Car Accident Laws
• North Dakota Car Seat Laws
• North Dakota Child Custody Laws
• North Dakota Child Support Laws
• North Dakota Common Law Marriage Laws
• North Dakota Data Privacy Laws
• North Dakota Deepfake Laws
• North Dakota Divorce Laws
• North Dakota Dog Bite Laws
• North Dakota Emancipation Laws
• North Dakota Expungement Laws
• North Dakota Hit and Run Laws
• North Dakota Landlord-Tenant Laws