Recording Law for Phone & Video Calls in North Dakota

North Dakota is a one-party consent state for phone calls and in-person conversations. That means you can record any conversation you are part of without telling the other person or getting their permission first. The rule comes from North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-15-02, which covers both phone calls and in-person conversations. The law says you can record as long as you are a party to the communication or have the consent of one party, you are not recording for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm, and the speaker did not exhibit a reasonable expectation that the communication would not be intercepted. The same rule applies whether you are at home, at work, or in a public place. There is no separate rule just for recordings made inside someone’s house.

The key statute is North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-15-02, which makes it a crime to intercept wire or oral communications. The law defines “intercept” as secretly overhearing or aural acquisition of the conversation’s contents. The same chapter defines “oral communication” as any spoken words where the speaker has a reasonable expectation that the conversation won’t be overheard under circumstances justifying such expectation. North Dakota courts have not issued a published decision that squarely applies this expectation-of-privacy clause to a public-place fact pattern, so the public-space outcome is inferred from the statutory text alone at medium confidence. Because the state’s definition is textually identical to the federal wiretap statute, judges often look to federal cases for guidance when the state law is unclear. The law also says you are not breaking the rule if the actor was a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication had given prior consent to such interception, and such communication was not intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm.

If your device records video but not audio, North Dakota’s wiretap law does not apply. The statute only restricts the “aural acquisition” of a conversation, which means audio only. Silent video recordings are not restricted by this law. There is one other law, North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-20-12.2, that bars secretly installing or using a device to observe or record sounds or events in a dwelling, tanning booth, hotel sleeping room, or other place with a reasonable expectation of privacy, but only when done with sexual intent. That law does not affect routine video recordings of public interactions or police activity.

Federal courts covering North Dakota have not issued a definitive published holding recognizing a First Amendment right to record police in any setting, though several Eighth Circuit decisions have gone most of the way there. In Chestnut v. Wallace, No. 18-3472 (8th Cir. Jan. 21, 2020), the court held it was clearly established that a bystander has a right to watch police–citizen interactions at a distance and without interfering, and it noted that every circuit court to have considered the question has held that a person has the right to record police activity in public. An earlier, unpublished case, Akins v. Knight, No. 16-3555 (8th Cir. 2017), involved a person blocked from filming a private citizen/protester inside a police-station lobby rather than an officer performing duties in public, so it does not squarely contradict the more protective line of cases. Because the law is not fully settled in North Dakota, treat recordings of police as a situation that benefits from the one-party consent rule but should be reviewed by a lawyer before relying on a constitutional right to record.

Imagine you are on a business call with a coworker and want to keep a copy for your notes. Under North Dakota law, you can record the call without telling the coworker because you are a party to the conversation and you are not using the recording for an illegal purpose. The same rule applies if you are on a video call with a client and want to record the meeting for your records. If your recording device only captures video and no audio, the wiretap law does not apply at all. If the speakers are speaking loudly enough that others nearby can hear, the law treats that as a conversation with no reasonable expectation of privacy, so recording is allowed. If the speakers took any visible or audible step to seclude themselves, the communication may still qualify as an 'oral communication' under the statute, so do not assume the recording is unrestricted without further review.

Breaking North Dakota’s wiretap law can lead to criminal charges. Under North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-15-02, a person who intentionally intercepts a wire or oral communication commits a Class C felony. Under North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-15-05, a person who loiters or eavesdrops near a place where communications are happening commits a Class A misdemeanor. The law does not create a private right of action, so the other person cannot sue you directly under the wiretap chapter. There are other laws that can apply to invasions of privacy or misuse of recordings, but those are separate from the wiretap statute.

North Dakota’s one-party consent rule applies uniformly regardless of where the oral communication occurs; there is no location-based carve-out for recordings made inside someone’s house. The only other home-related statute, North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-20-12.2, criminalizes secretly installing or using a device to observe or record sounds or events from a house or place of dwelling, but only when the actor enters upon another’s property and only when done with sexual intent. The statute also criminalizes surreptitious observation or recording of a tanning booth, hotel sleeping room, or other place with a reasonable expectation of privacy, with no trespass required, but only when done with sexual intent. That statute would not apply to a wearable device capturing a dispute or police interaction.

North Dakota’s wiretap statute does not restrict recording in public spaces unless the speaker exhibited a reasonable expectation that the communication would not be intercepted. The statute defines 'oral communication' as any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. Because North Dakota courts have not issued a published decision squarely applying this clause to a public-place fact pattern, the public-space outcome is inferred from the statutory text alone at medium confidence. If the speakers are speaking loudly enough that others nearby can hear, the law treats that as a conversation with no reasonable expectation of privacy, so recording is allowed. If the speakers took any visible or audible step to seclude themselves, the communication may still qualify as an 'oral communication' under the statute, so do not assume the recording is unrestricted without further review.