North Dakota
North Dakota Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and GPS Tracking (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
North Dakota employers can generally monitor work email, phone lines, and company computer systems under the federal wiretap law's business-use exception. North Dakota has not enacted a state notice statute, a social media password law, or a dedicated biometric privacy statute, so employees rely mainly on federal law and North Dakota's stalking and surreptitious-intrusion statutes for protection.
This article provides general legal information about North Dakota employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a North Dakota-licensed attorney about your specific situation.
Scope: This article covers North Dakota law on an employer's authority to monitor employees, access personal accounts, and conduct video, GPS, and biometric monitoring. It does not re-derive North Dakota's general one-party consent rules (see our North Dakota recording laws guide) or GPS law outside employment (see our North Dakota GPS tracking laws guide).
The Federal Baseline: the "Ordinary Course of Business" Exception
North Dakota's starting point for any workplace monitoring question is federal, not state, law. Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications without consent under 18 U.S.C. section 2511 (part of Title I's broader 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2523), but the statute carves out a broad exception for the owner of a communications system. Under the business-extension exemption in 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), equipment furnished by a communications provider that is "being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business" falls outside the Act's definition of a covered device, a definitional carve-out extended by courts to employers who own the phone, email, and computer systems their staff use, letting them intercept communications on that system in the ordinary course of business.
The leading case applying this exception is Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983), where an employer monitored a sales line as part of a standing training program. The court held that once a monitored call is determined to be personal rather than business-related, the employer's ordinary-course exception generally ends, and continued listening can create liability. North Dakota has no state monitoring statute that narrows or expands this federal baseline; state law fills the gap only in the specific areas below.
Does North Dakota Require Notice Before Electronic Monitoring?
No. A small group of states, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and (starting in 2026) Maine, require employers to give employees written or posted notice before monitoring phone, email, or internet use on the job. North Dakota has not enacted a comparable statute, so a North Dakota employer can generally monitor company email, internet use, and phone lines on employer-owned systems relying on the federal ordinary-course exception, without a state-mandated notice step. A written monitoring policy is still good practice, since it documents that surveillance occurred in the ordinary course of business and matters if an employee later brings a common-law privacy claim.
Does North Dakota Restrict Employer Access to Social Media Passwords?
No, not by a dedicated statute. Twenty-seven states, verified through the National Conference of State Legislatures' 50-state tracker, bar employers from requiring an employee or applicant to disclose a personal social media password; North Dakota is not one of them. A targeted search for a 2025 or 2026 North Dakota bill on this topic turns up nothing enacted.
N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02 is North Dakota's wire and oral communication interception (wiretap) statute, the same one this article cites elsewhere for the state's one-party consent recording rule; it makes it a class C felony to intentionally intercept, disclose, or use the contents of a wire or oral communication, and it says nothing about computer passwords, identification codes, or account access. North Dakota has not enacted a dedicated statute giving an employee a specific right to refuse a password request the way Montana's or Illinois' social media privacy statutes do. Absent a state law on point, a North Dakota employer that demands a personal social media password faces no state civil penalty for the request itself, though retaliating against a refusal could implicate other legal theories depending on the facts, such as wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
Video and Audio Surveillance in North Dakota Workplaces
North Dakota has no employment-specific video-surveillance statute, but general law limits where a camera, employer-owned or not, can point. North Dakota's surreptitious-intrusion statute, N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.2, is a specific-intent crime: every subsection requires that the individual act with intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify sexual desire. Subject to that intent element, it reaches secretly installing or using a device to observe, photograph, or record someone in a dwelling, or in a tanning booth, hotel sleeping room, or similar place where the person has exposed or is likely to expose intimate parts, a category that can cover a workplace restroom or locker room. The base offense is a Class A misdemeanor, enhanced to a Class C felony on a second offense, a prior related conviction, sex-offender registration, or when the victim is a minor. An employer that installs a hidden camera in those spaces with that sexual intent faces criminal exposure under this statute regardless of a posted monitoring policy, but a camera installed without intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify sexual desire, such as one installed only for loss-prevention or safety reasons, falls outside this specific-intent statute; it could still raise exposure under general common-law invasion-of-privacy claims.
Cameras in common work areas, sales floors, and entrances are generally permissible without a state-specific notice requirement. Audio recording of employees is governed separately by North Dakota's one-party consent rule under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(3)(c); an employer recording a conversation involving employees, rather than merely reviewing stored business communications, needs at least one participant's consent, not for an unlawful purpose, which the employer can supply if it is a party to the conversation. See our North Dakota workplace recording laws guide for depth.
GPS and Vehicle Tracking of North Dakota Employees
North Dakota has no dedicated employer vehicle-tracking notice statute comparable to New Jersey's N.J. Stat. section 34:6B-22. Unlike a stand-alone tracking-device offense, North Dakota built GPS tracking directly into its stalking statute, N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-07.1, which defines "stalk" to include unauthorized tracking of a person's movements through GPS, a robot, or other electronic means that would frighten, intimidate, or harass a reasonable person and serves no legitimate purpose. Unlike the harassment prongs of the same statute, this tracking prong has no course-of-conduct requirement, so a single unauthorized act can violate it.
The "no legitimate purpose" element is where employer tracking generally falls outside the statute. Tracking a company-owned fleet vehicle, or a phone or communications device the employer issues for work, is a legitimate business purpose, so North Dakota employers can generally track those assets without committing stalking and without any statutory duty to give advance notice. Tracking an employee's personally owned vehicle without consent is a materially different question; because the tracking would be unauthorized and the business justification weaker, it risks the same Class A misdemeanor exposure the statute imposes on anyone else, escalating to a Class C felony with a prior conviction or a protective-order violation. See our North Dakota GPS tracking laws guide for the full penalty structure and the licensed-investigator and peace-officer defenses.
Biometric Monitoring: Time Clocks in North Dakota
Employers increasingly use fingerprint or facial-recognition time clocks, and in trucking, driver-facing cameras that can capture biometric identifiers. Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act is the strongest law of this kind nationally, requiring written consent before collection and creating a private right of action; it does not apply outside Illinois. North Dakota has no comparable biometric consent statute, and no state law requires a North Dakota employer to obtain consent before enrolling employees in a fingerprint or facial-recognition time clock.
North Dakota's protection here is thinner than several neighboring and comparable states. Its breach-notification law, N.D. Cent. Code Chapter 51-30, defines "personal information" to include a name combined with a Social Security number, driver's license number, financial account number, date of birth, mother's maiden name, medical information, or digital signature, but biometric identifiers are not among the listed categories. That means a breach exposing only fingerprint or facial-recognition templates, without one of the listed data elements, does not by itself trigger North Dakota's notification duty, unlike North Carolina, where biometric data is expressly named in the parallel statute. North Dakota employees relying on a biometric time clock are protected mainly by employer policy, federal law where it applies, and general common-law tort claims, not by a dedicated state biometric statute.
North Dakota does draw one hard statutory line around body-worn tracking technology. N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-06, "Implanting microchips prohibited," provides that a person may not require that an individual have inserted into that individual's body a microchip containing a radio frequency identification device, and makes a violation a class A misdemeanor. It sits in the same chapter as the state wiretap statute cited throughout this article. Because it bars requiring an implant rather than regulating consent or data handling, it does not change the biometric time-clock analysis above, but it does mean a North Dakota employer cannot condition a job, facility access, or timekeeping on an implanted RFID chip.
What North Dakota Employees Can Do About Monitoring Concerns
An employee who believes an employer crossed a legal line has a few concrete options depending on what happened. A hidden camera in a restroom or locker room can support a criminal report under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.2. Unauthorized tracking of a personal vehicle can support a report under the stalking statute, N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-07.1, and a disorderly conduct restraining order under Chapter 12.1-31.2. Monitoring tied to a protected characteristic, retaliation for a workers' compensation claim, or interference with NLRA-protected activity may fall under the North Dakota Department of Labor and Human Rights or the National Labor Relations Board instead of a monitoring-specific statute.
Because North Dakota's monitoring rules span several distinct sources, criminal privacy law, stalking law, tort law, and federal wiretap and labor law, an employee with a specific fact pattern should keep records and consult a North Dakota-licensed employment attorney rather than assume a single statute covers the situation. See our Employee Monitoring Laws by State hub and US Recording Laws by State.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about North Dakota employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not a substitute for individualized legal advice. Employment monitoring disputes often involve overlapping statutes, employer policy, and federal law, and outcomes depend on specific facts. Readers should consult an attorney licensed in North Dakota for advice about a particular situation.
Related articles
- Employee Monitoring Laws by State
- North Dakota Recording Laws
- North Dakota Workplace Recording Laws
- North Dakota GPS Tracking Laws
- North Dakota Data Privacy Laws
- US Recording Laws by State
Last updated: July 9, 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of that date.
More North Dakota Laws
- North Dakota AI Meeting Recording Laws
- North Dakota At-Will Employment Laws
- North Dakota Data Privacy Laws
- North Dakota GPS Tracking Laws
- North Dakota Recording Laws
- North Dakota Whistleblower Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my employer read my work email in North Dakota?
Generally yes, once the email is on an employer-owned system. North Dakota has no state electronic-monitoring notice statute, so employers typically rely on the federal business-extension exemption in 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), which excludes employer-provided equipment used in the ordinary course of business from the Wiretap Act's device definition.
Can my employer ask for my Facebook or Instagram password in North Dakota?
North Dakota has no dedicated social media password statute, unlike 27 other states verified by NCSL. There is no specific state civil penalty for an employer requesting a personal password, though retaliation for refusing could raise other legal claims depending on the facts.
Does North Dakota law require my employer to tell me I'm being monitored?
Not by a dedicated statute. Unlike Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Maine, North Dakota has no general electronic-monitoring notice law, so no state-mandated notice is required before monitoring employer-owned systems.
Can my employer GPS track a company vehicle I drive in North Dakota?
Yes. North Dakota's stalking statute, N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-07.1, only reaches tracking that serves no legitimate purpose. Tracking a company-owned vehicle or an employer-issued phone is a legitimate business purpose, so no notice is legally required.
Can my employer track my personal car in North Dakota?
Not safely without your consent. Tracking a vehicle you do not own, without authorization, can satisfy the stalking statute's unauthorized-tracking prong, a Class A misdemeanor that a single act can trigger.
Can my employer put a camera in a North Dakota workplace restroom or locker room?
Only if it is installed with intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify sexual desire. North Dakota's surreptitious-intrusion statute, N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.2, is a specific-intent crime, and it applies to an employer-installed camera with that intent just as it applies to anyone else. A camera installed only for loss-prevention or safety reasons falls outside this statute, though it could still raise exposure under general common-law invasion-of-privacy claims.
Can my North Dakota employer require a fingerprint scan for the time clock?
Under current state law, yes. North Dakota has no biometric consent statute, and biometric data is not even covered by the state's breach-notification law, so employees have less statutory protection here than in several neighboring states.
Can my North Dakota employer require me to have a microchip implanted?
No. N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-06 provides that a person may not require that an individual have inserted into that individual's body a microchip containing a radio frequency identification device, and a violation is a class A misdemeanor. The statute bars requiring an implant; it does not regulate fingerprint or facial-recognition time clocks, which North Dakota leaves largely unregulated.
What can I do if I find a hidden GPS tracker on my car in North Dakota?
Photograph the device without destroying it, report it to police as suspected stalking under N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-07.1, and consider petitioning for a disorderly conduct restraining order under Chapter 12.1-31.2.
Updates
Added North Dakota's microchip-implant ban (N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-06), which bars requiring an employee to have an RFID microchip inserted and makes a violation a class A misdemeanor.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected two fabricated claims about North Dakota statutes. N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02 is the state's wire/oral communication interception (wiretap) statute; it was wrongly described (in KeyTakeaways, body text, and the Sources label) as a general computer-crime statute covering password/account access. N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.2 (hidden cameras) is a specific-intent statute requiring intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify sexual desire; the article's 'regardless of who installs the device or why' and loss-prevention example were corrected to reflect that a camera installed without that intent falls outside the statute.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the federal statutory basis for employer 'ordinary course of business' monitoring: it rests on the business-extension exemption in 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), not the service-provider exception in section 2511(2)(a)(i).
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 Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), North Dakota Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide (2026)
§ 12.1-17-07.1StalkingIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this section: "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct consisting of two or more acts evidencing a continuity of purpose. The term includes an act conducted with a robot in the direct control of the person. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity. "Immediate family" means a spouse, parent, child, or sibling. The term also includes any other individual who regularly resides in the household or who within the prior six months regularly resided in the household. "Robot" means an artificial object or system that senses, processes, and acts using technology, including the associated elements, communication links, and artificial intelligence. The term includes remotely piloted aircraft. "Stalk" means: To engage in an intentional course of conduct directed at a specific person which frightens, intimidates, or harasses that person and which serves no legitimate purpose.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · 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: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Holbach (2009) applied the section's constitutionally protected activity exclusion, holding the defendant's conduct lost protection once it became an intentional course of conduct causing fear, and that he lacked standing to call it vague. State v. Geiger (2023) upheld a conviction under subsection (2) on sufficiency review.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Holbach (North Dakota Supreme Court 2009, 763 N.W.2d 761)✓A man with a prior stalking conviction repeatedly followed the victim around town despite a no-contact probation order; the court held his travel was not constitutionally protected activity excluded by the statute and that he lacked standing to argue it was vague.
- State v. Geiger (North Dakota Supreme Court 2023, 997 N.W.2d 845)✓After a bank closed his account, a customer phoned and threatened an employee, then parked repeatedly outside the bank and near her home; the court held the evidence sufficed for stalking under section 12.1-17-07.1(2) and that his protected-activity claim was not preserved.
- State v. Rivera (North Dakota Supreme Court 2018, 2018 ND 15)“…rely on the definition of course of conduct provided under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-07.1(1)(a). That statute provides, “As used…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: North Dakota GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
§ 12.1-20-12.2Surreptitious intrusionIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
An individual, with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify that individual's lust, passions, or sexual desires, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if that individual does any of the following: With intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of another, enters upon another's property and surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps into a house or place of dwelling of another. With intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of another, enters upon another's property and surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events from a house or place of dwelling of another. With intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant, surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps into a tanning booth, a sleeping room in a hotel, or other place where a reasonable individual would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose that individual's intimate parts or has removed the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Just (North Dakota Supreme Court 2006, 723 N.W.2d 541)“…to arrest judgment under N.D.R.Crim.P. 3k and N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12.2. The district court denied Just’s motio…”
- Silbernagel v. Silbernagel (North Dakota Supreme Court 2011, 2011 ND 140)“…guilty of surreptitious intrusion, a class C felony, under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12.2. On appeal, Ennen argues the evidence…”
- United States v. Watkins (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2026)“…18-3; N.M. Stat. Ann § 30-9-20; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202;3 N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 12.1-20-12.2;2 N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-31-14; Ohio Re…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 137 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): North Dakota Century Code § 51-30-01 (Definitions)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02, wire and oral communication interception (one-party consent defense at subsection 3(c))(ndlegis.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), business-extension exemption excluding employer-provided equipment used in the ordinary course of business from the Wiretap Act's device definition(law.cornell.edu).gov
- Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983)(law.resource.org)
- N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-07.1, Stalking (electronic tracking prong)(ndlegis.gov).gov
- N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-20-12.2, Surreptitious intrusion (hidden cameras)(ndlegis.gov).gov
- N.D. Cent. Code Chapter 51-30, Notice of Security Breach for Personal Information(ndlegis.gov).gov
- N.D.C.C. Chapter 12.1-31.2, Disorderly Conduct Restraining Orders(ndlegis.gov).gov
- NCSL, Privacy of Employee and Student Social Media Accounts (50-state tracker)(ncsl.org)
- 18 U.S.C. section 2511, Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited(uscode.house.gov).gov