North Dakota Laws on Recording Police: Your Constitutional Rights (2026)

In North Dakota, recording police officers performing their duties in public is not a crime, although the Eighth Circuit, which covers North Dakota, has not decided whether the First Amendment protects it. North Dakota's one-party consent law, N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02, also permits audio recording of any police encounter you participate in without officer consent.

Recording police officers performing their duties in public is not a crime under North Dakota law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which covers North Dakota, has not decided whether the First Amendment protects recording police. In Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020), a Fourth Amendment case, the court held that detaining a man for watching police-citizen interactions at a distance and without interfering violated his clearly established rights; it did not decide whether recording police was protected, because the plaintiff there was only watching, not recording. In Molina v. Book, No. 21-1830 (8th Cir. Feb. 2, 2023), the court held that observing and recording police was not a clearly established First Amendment right in 2015. Robbins v. Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), assumed without deciding that a right to record existed and held the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on his First Amendment claims, while letting his false-arrest claim proceed. Eight other federal appeals courts (the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits) have recognized the right, and those rulings are persuasive but not binding in North Dakota. North Dakota's one-party consent law under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02 separately lets you audio record encounters you take part in.

This guide covers your rights to record police, what officers can and cannot do, how to exercise your rights safely, body camera policies, and legal remedies if your rights are violated.

The Constitutional Right to Record Police

Federal Court Recognition

Eight federal appeals courts (the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits) have held that the First Amendment protects recording police officers doing their jobs in public, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner limits, and the Fourth Circuit has held that livestreaming a police traffic stop is protected speech. Several of those courts still granted the officers qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established when the events happened. The Eighth Circuit, which covers North Dakota, has not decided whether the First Amendment protects recording police. In Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. Jan. 21, 2020), a Fourth Amendment case, the court held that a person's right to watch police-citizen interactions at a distance and without interfering was clearly established, so the officer could not detain him for it. Chestnut was watching, not recording, so the court did not decide whether recording police was clearly established, though it noted that every circuit court to have considered the question had held that a person has the right to record police activity in public. In Molina v. Book, No. 21-1830 (8th Cir. Feb. 2, 2023, cert. denied Feb. 20, 2024), the court held that observing and recording police-citizen interactions was not a clearly established First Amendment right in 2015, and that Chestnut, as a Fourth Amendment case, could not clearly establish one. In Robbins v. Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. Jan. 5, 2021), the court assumed without deciding that Robbins had a right to record and held the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on his First Amendment claims, citing his non-responsive, evasive, and confrontational behavior and the officers' knowledge of recent criminal activity involving cars parked in the area and of a previous filming and stalking incident that escalated into the murder of two officers. The same decision let his false-arrest and property-seizure claims against the officers proceed. The Eighth Circuit has protected recording in public in a different setting. In Ness v. City of Bloomington, 11 F.4th 914 (8th Cir. 2021), it held that photographing and video recording in a public park to inform the public is protected speech, while noting that recording unrelated to an expressive purpose may not be protected.

This means that while other circuits support a right to record police, officers in North Dakota may not face personal liability under Section 1983 if they interfere with recording, because the Eighth Circuit has not clearly established the right.

What You Can Record

You can record police activity in North Dakota including:

• Traffic stops (including your own)
• Arrests in public spaces
• Police interactions with community members
• Protests and crowd control operations
• Police misconduct and use of force
• Conversations you participate in with officers

State Law Protections

North Dakota's one-party consent law provides additional protection. As a participant in a conversation with a police officer, you satisfy the consent requirement for audio recording. For bystander video recording without audio of a private conversation, the wiretap statute does not apply to silent video.

What Officers Can and Cannot Do

Officers generally cannot:

• Make you delete your recordings (no North Dakota statute authorizes it)
• Search the contents of your device without a warrant, per Riley v. California (2014), though the device itself may be seized without a warrant under recognized exceptions such as plain view or exigent circumstances
• Charge you with a crime for the act of recording in public, because no North Dakota statute makes it one

Whether an officer may order you to stop recording, or may be sued for retaliating against you for filming, has not been decided in the Eighth Circuit. Even in circuits that recognize a right to record, officers may impose reasonable time, place, and manner limits.

Officers CAN:

• Order you to step back to a safe distance
• Restrict access to active crime scenes
• Ask you to move if you block traffic
• Arrest you for separate offenses committed while recording
• Obtain recordings through proper legal process with a warrant

How to Safely Record Police

1. Stay on public property at a safe distance
2. Do not physically interfere with police operations
3. Remain calm and respectful
4. Enable cloud backup for your recordings
5. If ordered to stop or move, comply and raise the issue later rather than argue on the spot
6. Note officer names, badge numbers, and patrol car numbers

Body Camera Policies

Several North Dakota law enforcement agencies have adopted body-worn camera programs. Under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.7(9), recordings made in a private place are exempt from mandatory public disclosure under the open-records law. Footage from public encounters is generally available through the North Dakota Open Records Law. The public-meeting right under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-19 separately guarantees your right to attend and record open government meetings. The North Dakota Attorney General's office provides guidance on public records requests for body camera footage.

Legal Remedies for Violations

If an officer violates your recording rights, you can:

• File a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit for civil rights violations
• File complaints with the officer's department
• Contact the ACLU of North Dakota
• Report to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

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

• North Dakota Biometric Privacy Laws
• Surveillance Camera Laws

More North Dakota Laws

• North Dakota AI Meeting Recording Laws
• North Dakota Dashcam Laws
• North Dakota Data Privacy Laws
• North Dakota Deepfake Laws
• North Dakota Employee Monitoring Laws
• North Dakota GPS Tracking Laws
• North Dakota Police Bodycam Laws
• North Dakota Smart Glasses Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I record police officers in North Dakota?

Yes, recording police in a public space is not a crime under North Dakota law. However, the Eighth Circuit, which covers North Dakota, has not decided whether the First Amendment protects recording police, and in Molina v. Book (2023) it held that any such right was not clearly established in 2015 (Chestnut v. Wallace, a Fourth Amendment case, protected only watching police from a distance without interfering), so an officer who retaliates may still be shielded by qualified immunity in a federal civil-rights suit. You can generally film from a public place where you are lawfully present without needing officer consent, as long as you do not interfere with police work.

Can a police officer tell me to stop recording in North Dakota?

The law is unsettled. The Eighth Circuit has not decided whether the First Amendment protects recording police, so refusing an order to stop on the spot is risky even if the order could be challenged later. Do not delete footage because an officer demands it, comply with orders to move back, and challenge an order you believe is unlawful afterward.

Can police seize my phone for recording them in North Dakota?

An officer can seize the physical device without a warrant under recognized exceptions such as plain view or exigent circumstances, but reviewing or searching the footage stored on it generally requires a warrant under Riley v. California. State clearly that you do not consent to any search.

Can I request police body camera footage in North Dakota?

Yes. Body camera footage may be available through the North Dakota Open Records Law. Submit a written request to the law enforcement agency identifying the specific incident.

What should I do if police violate my recording rights in North Dakota?

Document the encounter, file a complaint with the department, and contact a civil rights attorney. You may file a Section 1983 lawsuit for constitutional rights violations.