North Dakota
North Dakota Dashcam Laws: Mounting, Audio, and Evidence Rules (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Dashcams are legal in North Dakota. There is no dashcam-specific statute, but the general windshield-obstruction equipment law, N.D.C.C. § 39-21-39, prohibits driving with any nontransparent object on the windshield that obstructs the driver's clear view and requires anything affixed to the front windshield, measured together with the windshield, to let through at least 70 percent of light. Audio recording follows one-party consent under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02. A dashboard mount is the safest way to stay compliant.
Dashcams are legal in North Dakota. The state has no dashcam-specific statute, but the general windshield-obstruction equipment law, N.D.C.C. § 39-21-39, applies to any nontransparent object mounted on the windshield, including a dashcam. Audio recording by dashcams follows the one-party consent rule under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02, meaning you may record conversations inside your vehicle that you take part in.
This guide covers dashcam legality, mounting best practices, audio recording rules, using footage as evidence, traffic stop rights, and commercial vehicle considerations.
Dashcam Legality
North Dakota has no dashcam-specific statute, but the general windshield-obstruction equipment law, N.D.C.C. § 39-21-39, prohibits driving with any sign, poster, or other nontransparent material on the windshield that obstructs the driver's clear view. Subsection 4 adds a separate rule: you may not drive with any object, material, or tinting "displayed, affixed, or applied on the front windshield" unless, together with the windshield, it has a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. The only exception, in subsection 5, is for nonreflective sunscreening or tint above the AS-1 line or within the top five inches of the windshield, and it does not cover a camera.
A dashboard mount avoids both rules. A camera affixed to the windshield, even behind the rearview mirror, may not comply with the 70 percent rule on the statute's text.
Audio Recording
Dashcam audio recording follows one-party consent. Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02(3)(c), it is a defense to the eavesdropping offense that you were a party to the conversation, or that one of the parties gave prior consent, and that the recording was not made to commit a crime or other unlawful harm. Being in the car is not the same as being a party: your consent covers conversations you take part in, not a private conversation between passengers that you are not part of. For conversations you do take part in, you do not need to inform passengers.
Using Footage as Evidence
Dashcam footage is valuable for traffic accident cases, insurance claims, hit and run identification, DUI documentation, and road rage incidents. Preserve original files, remove the memory card after incidents, back up footage, and provide it to your attorney and insurance company promptly.
Traffic Stops
Recording a traffic stop is not a crime in North Dakota, and many federal appeals courts have held that the First Amendment protects recording police in public. The Eighth Circuit, which covers North Dakota, has not decided that question, and in Molina v. Book (2023) it held that any such right was not clearly established in 2015. If an officer tells you to turn the camera off, comply and raise it later rather than argue at the roadside. An officer can seize the physical device or memory card without a warrant under recognized exceptions such as plain view or exigent circumstances, but reviewing the footage stored on it generally requires a warrant, the same principle the U.S. Supreme Court applied to cell phone data in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).
Commercial Vehicles
Commercial operators should comply with FMCSA regulations. Ride-share and delivery drivers can use dashcams; check platform-specific policies.
More North Dakota Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to North Dakota Recording Laws
More North Dakota Recording Topics
More North Dakota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Are dashcams legal in North Dakota?
Yes. North Dakota has no dashcam-specific law, but N.D.C.C. § 39-21-39 prohibits anything nontransparent on the windshield that obstructs your view and requires any object affixed to the front windshield, together with the windshield, to allow at least 70 percent light transmittance, so a dashboard mount is the safest choice.
Do I need to tell passengers my dashcam records audio in North Dakota?
Not for conversations you take part in. Under one-party consent, you satisfy the requirement as a participant, as long as the recording is not made to commit a crime or other unlawful harm. Your own consent does not cover a private conversation between passengers that you are not part of.
Can dashcam footage be used in court in North Dakota?
Yes. Dashcam footage is admissible as evidence for traffic accidents, insurance disputes, and criminal cases. The footage must be authentic and unaltered.
Can police make me turn off my dashcam during a traffic stop?
The law is unsettled. Recording a traffic stop is not a crime in North Dakota, but the Eighth Circuit, which covers North Dakota, has not decided whether the First Amendment protects recording police, so if an officer tells you to turn the camera off, comply and raise it later. Officers generally need a warrant to search the contents of your memory card, though they may temporarily seize the card itself if they have probable cause to believe it holds evidence.
Where should I mount my dashcam in North Dakota?
On the dashboard, in a position that does not block your forward view. North Dakota has no dashcam-specific mounting regulation, but N.D.C.C. § 39-21-39 prohibits any nontransparent object on the windshield that obstructs the driver's clear view and requires any object affixed to the front windshield, together with the windshield, to allow at least 70 percent light transmittance. A windshield mount, even behind the rearview mirror, may not meet that rule.
Updates
Clarified in the summary, key takeaways and FAQs that North Dakota's 70 percent light-transmittance rule measures an object on the windshield together with the windshield itself.
We added North Dakota's rule that anything affixed to the front windshield must let through at least 70 percent of light, which makes windshield mounts risky, and corrected the traffic-stop advice because the Eighth Circuit has not decided whether the First Amendment protects recording police.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the audio-recording section to state that North Dakota one-party consent covers conversations the recorder takes part in (and not recordings made to commit a crime or other unlawful harm), rather than every conversation inside the vehicle.
Corrected the dashcam-placement section, which claimed no North Dakota law restricts dashcam mounting; the state's general windshield-obstruction equipment statute, N.D.C.C. 39-21-39, does apply. The page's existing mounting advice already complies with it.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Qualified an absolute Fourth Amendment claim about dashcams during traffic stops. 'Officers cannot order you to turn it off' overstated a right that courts recognize as real but not absolute (subject to officer-safety/obstruction limits), and 'cannot seize the memory card without a warrant' conflated seizure (which does not categorically require a warrant, e.g. under plain view or exigent-circumstances exceptions) with search of the footage's contents (which does, per Riley v. California).
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
North Dakota Century Code
§ 12.1-15-02Interception of wire or oral communications - EavesdroppingIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
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; or Intentionally discloses to any other person or intentionally uses the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he 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. It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection 1 that: The actor was authorized by law to intercept, disclose, or use, as the case may be, the wire or oral communication. The actor was: A person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, and He was a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication had given prior consent to such interception.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Fargo Women's Health Organization, Inc. v. Larson (1986) applied the subsection 3(c) defense to this section and held that recordings of calls were properly admitted because the callers knew of and consented to the recording of their own conversations.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fargo Women's Health Organization, Inc. v. Larson (North Dakota Supreme Court 1986, 391 N.W.2d 627)✓A private investigator hired by an abortion clinic recruited callers to phone a rival anti-abortion clinic and recorded the calls with the callers' consent; the court held that consent triggered the defense in section 12.1-15-02(3)(c), so the tapes were admitted.
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…Ann. § 30-12-1 (1994); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287 (1999); N. D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02 (1997); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.52…”
- American Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2012, 679 F.3d 583)“…55 § 750.539c; N.D. Cent. Code. Ann. § 12.1-15-02. The Cali- fornia statute is illustrat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: North Dakota Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), North Dakota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, North Dakota Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Sources and References
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02(ndlegis.gov).gov
- FMCSA(fmcsa.dot.gov).gov
- ND DOT(dot.nd.gov).gov
- N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-15, Interception of Wire or Oral Communications (North Dakota Legislative Branch)(ndlegis.gov).gov