North Dakota
North Dakota Drone Laws: N.D.C.C. 29-29.4 Warrant Rules
North Dakota requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using a drone to gather evidence in a criminal investigation, under N.D. Cent. Code Chapter 29-29.4, subject to four narrow exceptions. The same chapter bars arming police drones with lethal weapons, but, unusually, still allows less-than-lethal ones.
This guide is part of our Drone Laws by State series; for the broader rules on recording people and property in North Dakota, see our surveillance camera laws guide.
Information last verified on 2026-07-09. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses North Dakota law on law-enforcement drone use under N.D. Cent. Code Chapter 29-29.4, general civilian drone conduct, and the federal shoot-down law. It does not cover FAA flight-operation rules, which apply the same way nationwide.
How federal and North Dakota law divide drone authority
The FAA controls the navigable airspace, which for drones extends down to the ground; every North Dakota operator must still register a qualifying drone, hold the applicable FAA credential, and broadcast Remote ID under the nationwide rules that took effect in 2023. None of that touches the question North Dakota's Legislature answered in 2015: when a sheriff's department may launch a drone over private land without asking a judge first. That is a state criminal-procedure question, and North Dakota legislated a direct answer largely in response to the Brossart standoff described below.
Does police need a warrant to fly a drone over my property in North Dakota?
Yes, as the default rule. N.D. Cent. Code Section 29-29.4-03 bars a law enforcement agency from using a drone, or, under the same chapter, certain autonomous "robots," to gather evidence or other information in a criminal investigation without first obtaining a search warrant. The warrant must satisfy the North Dakota Constitution and include a data collection statement specifying who is authorized to operate the system, where it will operate, the maximum period it will fly on each mission, and whether it will collect information about individuals, including what kind.
Section 29-29.4-04 carves out four exceptions where a warrant is not required: patrolling within 25 miles of a national border to deter illegal entry of people or contraband, exigent circumstances involving reasonable suspicion that swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life or bodily harm, assessing environmental or weather-related damage, erosion, flooding, or contamination, and research or educational efforts conducted by or with a school or institution of higher education. These four are the complete list; a flight that fits none of them, and is not covered by a warrant, is unauthorized.
Section 29-29.4-06 backs the warrant requirement with a documentation regime: agencies must log every flight's duration, path, and mission objective, retain flight information for five years, cap non-evidentiary imaging at 90 days, and let a criminal defendant obtain the underlying flight records through subpoena and discovery. It is one of the more detailed transparency requirements among states that regulate law enforcement drone use.
Can my neighbor legally fly a drone over my property in North Dakota?
North Dakota has no statute specifically barring one private citizen from using a drone to observe or photograph another. Chapter 29-29.4 governs law enforcement agencies, not civilians, so a dispute between neighbors falls back on general North Dakota law: civil trespass and nuisance theories, and the state's general privacy-tort and harassment statutes where the facts support them. A homeowner facing a persistent nuisance drone has a stronger claim through those doctrines, or through a direct complaint to the FAA if the operator can be identified, than through Chapter 29-29.4 itself.
North Dakota's law on arming police drones
Section 29-29.4-05 bars a law enforcement agency from authorizing a drone armed with any lethal weapon. The bill that became Chapter 29-29.4 originally would have banned weaponizing police drones entirely, but law enforcement groups lobbied against a blanket ban during the 2015 legislative process, and the amended version that passed left an opening for less-than-lethal payloads, such as tasers, rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, and sound cannons, so long as the weapon is remotely controlled and cannot activate autonomously. Multiple national news outlets described North Dakota at the time as the first state to explicitly authorize arming police drones with less-than-lethal weapons, a distinction civil-liberties groups criticized as an unintended result of law-enforcement-drafted amendments to what began as a privacy bill. The same section separately restricts a "robot's" use of lethal force to narrow situations where deadly force by an officer in person would already be legally justified, again requiring remote control rather than autonomous activation.
The Rodney Brossart case: what actually happened
North Dakota's drone law is frequently discussed alongside the 2011 standoff at Rodney Brossart's farm near Lakota in Nelson County, one of the first publicized instances of a domestic law enforcement drone assisting an arrest, though the popular retelling overstates what the case decided. Six of a neighbor's cattle wandered onto Brossart's land in June 2011, and when deputies returned to retrieve them, Brossart's three armed sons refused to let them approach, triggering an armed standoff that stretched roughly 16 hours and drew a SWAT team from multiple counties. Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke arranged for a Predator B drone on loan from U.S. Customs and Border Protection to fly over the property; officers credited it with confirming it was safe to move in, and the sons were arrested without a shot fired.
Two points get lost in retellings. First, this happened four years before Chapter 29-29.4 existed, so no North Dakota warrant statute for drones could have been violated; the case is more accurately a catalyst for the 2015 law than a test of it. Second, the ruling on the drone issue came from a state court, not a federal one. Brossart's defense moved to dismiss the state charges on the ground that the drone surveillance was warrantless; in 2012, Northeast Central Judicial District Judge Joel D. Medd, a North Dakota state district judge, denied that motion, finding no improper use of the drone and that it had no bearing on the charges being contested. National coverage at the time frequently, and incorrectly, called Medd a "U.S. District Judge." A jury convicted Brossart of terrorizing law enforcement officers in January 2014, acquitting him of theft and criminal mischief; he was sentenced to three years with all but six months suspended, and his sons pleaded guilty to lesser menacing charges and received probation. No appellate court revisited the drone-warrant question, so the ruling carries no binding precedent beyond Brossart's own case.
| Question | North Dakota rule |
|---|---|
| Law enforcement warrant for drone evidence-gathering | Required, N.D.C.C. Section 29-29.4-03 |
| Warrant exceptions | Border patrol (25 mi), exigent circumstances, environmental/weather assessment, research/education |
| Lethal drone weapons | Banned, Section 29-29.4-05 |
| Less-than-lethal drone weapons | Allowed if remotely controlled, not autonomous |
| Flight data retention | 5 years (flight info); 90 days max (non-evidentiary imaging) |
| Civilian drone privacy statute | None; general trespass/nuisance law applies |
| Shooting down a drone | Federal felony regardless of location, 18 U.S.C. Section 32 |
Watch out: Chapter 29-29.4's warrant requirement only binds law enforcement agencies gathering evidence for a criminal investigation. It says nothing about a private citizen's drone hovering over your yard; that dispute runs through ordinary trespass and nuisance law, not this chapter.
Is it legal to shoot down a drone over my property in North Dakota?
No. Federal law makes it a serious felony to damage, destroy, or disable any drone, including one hovering low over the shooter's own yard. 18 U.S.C. Section 32, the Aircraft Sabotage Act, criminalizes willfully damaging an "aircraft," a category the FAA has applied to drones since 2012. A conviction carries up to 20 years in federal prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and the permanent loss of firearm rights that follows any federal felony. The FAA has stated publicly that it, not the landowner, controls the airspace, so owning the ground below a drone does not create a right to fire on what is above it.
Publicized cases where a shooter faced only reduced or dismissed state charges elsewhere are not evidence that this conduct is safe in North Dakota. A Kentucky man's 2015 shoot-down of a neighbor's drone led a local judge to dismiss state criminal-mischief charges, but the drone owner's federal lawsuit, Boggs v. Merideth, was dismissed in 2017 for lack of federal jurisdiction, without any court ever deciding whether the shoot-down itself was lawful. No North Dakota statute, and no federal one, gives a landowner a right to disable a drone.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about North Dakota drone law as verified on 2026-07-09. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Readers with a specific drone incident should consult a lawyer licensed in North Dakota.
Related articles
- Drone Laws by State: the complete hub
- North Dakota Surveillance Camera Laws
- North Dakota Recording Laws
Last updated: 2026-07-09. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of 2026-07-09.
More North Dakota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does North Dakota require a warrant for police drone surveillance?
Yes, as the default rule under N.D.C.C. Section 29-29.4-03. Four exceptions apply: border patrol within 25 miles of a national border, exigent circumstances involving imminent danger to life, environmental or weather damage assessment, and research or education tied to a school.
Can my neighbor legally fly a drone over my yard in North Dakota?
North Dakota has no drone-specific civilian privacy statute. Chapter 29-29.4 governs law enforcement only, so a dispute with a neighbor's drone runs through general trespass, nuisance, and privacy law instead.
Are police drones allowed to carry weapons in North Dakota?
Lethal weapons are banned under Section 29-29.4-05. Less-than-lethal weapons, such as tasers, rubber bullets, pepper spray, and tear gas, are allowed if remotely controlled and not capable of autonomous activation, making North Dakota an outlier nationally.
Did the Rodney Brossart case involve North Dakota's drone warrant law?
No. The 2011 standoff and 2012 ruling predate Chapter 29-29.4, which was not enacted until 2015. A state district judge, often misreported as a federal judge, denied a motion to dismiss based on the warrantless drone use, but the case is more accurately seen as a catalyst for the later law than a test of it.
How long can North Dakota police keep drone flight data?
Section 29-29.4-06 requires flight information, meaning duration, path, and mission objective, to be retained for five years. Non-evidentiary imaging may not be retained for more than 90 days.
Is it legal to shoot down a drone flying over my house in North Dakota?
No. Destroying a drone is a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. Section 32 regardless of location, punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison. No North Dakota law creates an exception for a landowner.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
Sources and References
- N.D. Cent. Code Chapter 29-29.4, Surveillance by Unmanned Aerial Vehicle(ndlegis.gov).gov
- North Dakota Legislative Branch, Century Code Chapter 29-29.4 section index(ndlegis.gov).gov
- North Dakota Court System, Judge Joel D. Medd judicial profile (Northeast Central Judicial District)(ndcourts.gov).gov
- Forbes, "Predator Drone Sends North Dakota Man To Jail" (Jan. 27, 2014)(forbes.com)
- 18 U.S.C. Section 32, Destruction of Aircraft or Aircraft Facilities(law.cornell.edu)
- Boggs v. Merideth, No. 3:16-cv-00006 (W.D. Ky.), case docket(courtlistener.com)