Recording Law for Police & Civil Rights in North Dakota

North Dakota lets you record any conversation you take part in without telling the other people. The state’s wiretap law, North Dakota Century Code chapter 12.1-15, says it’s legal to intercept a wire or oral communication if you’re a party to it or have the other party’s consent, and you aren’t doing it to commit a crime. The law 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. In practice, if you’re in the conversation, you can record it. The same one-party consent rule applies to civilians recording conversations they are part of, including interactions with store clerks or others. Public police activity typically carries no reasonable expectation of privacy, which likely takes it outside the 'oral communication' definition entirely. The key point: you don’t have to ask permission to record yourself in the conversation.

North Dakota’s wiretap law only restricts "intercepting" communications, which it defines as secretly overhearing or aural (audio) acquisition of the content. That means silent video recording is not covered by the law at all. If your device captures video but no audio, the wiretap statute doesn’t apply. The law does not create a law-enforcement exception for citizens recording police; the one-party consent framework governs civilians recording conversations they are part of. Public police activity typically carries no reasonable expectation of privacy, which likely takes it outside the 'oral communication' definition. The only other law that touches recording in private spaces is a narrow sexual-voyeurism statute that requires sexual intent and doesn’t apply to recording police or public disputes. So, for video-only recording in public, there’s no legal restriction under North Dakota’s wiretap law.

Federal courts covering North Dakota lean toward protecting the right to record on-duty police in public, but the Eighth Circuit—the federal appeals court for North Dakota—has not issued a definitive published ruling squarely recognizing that right. In Chestnut v. Wallace, the Eighth Circuit held it was clearly established that a bystander has a right to watch police-citizen interactions at a distance and without interfering, and it expressly noted that every circuit court to have considered the question has held that a person has the right to record police activity in public. However, the Eighth Circuit’s case law is more equivocal than the eight circuits that have expressly held there is such a right. A case sometimes cited as rejecting a right to record, Akins v. Knight, involved a plaintiff who was blocked from filming a private citizen/protester in a police-station lobby, not an officer performing duties in public, so it does not squarely contradict the more permissive line of cases. The bottom line: recording on-duty police in public is very likely protected by the First Amendment, but because the Eighth Circuit hasn’t fully confirmed it, the legal picture isn’t as clear as in some other states.

Even if recording police in public is likely protected, the Eighth Circuit’s case law is more cautious than other circuits. Akins v. Knight, an unpublished case summarily affirmed, involved a plaintiff blocked from filming a private citizen/protester in a police-station lobby, not an officer’s public conduct, and is sometimes mischaracterized as rejecting a right to record more broadly. That means if the encounter moves inside a station, lobby, or any area with screening or admission control, the right to record becomes less certain. For encounters on a public street, sidewalk, or open parking lot, the safer legal position is that recording is protected, but it’s still best to avoid interfering with police duties. Inside a station or lobby, treat the recording as a gray area and consult a lawyer if you plan to rely on a right-to-record argument.

Imagine you’re pulled over on a public highway. You place your phone on the dashboard and start recording audio and video of the officer’s questions and your responses. Under North Dakota’s one-party consent rule, this is legal because you’re part of the conversation and the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. The wiretap law doesn’t restrict video-only recording, and the audio is covered by the one-party consent defense. If the officer orders you to stop recording, you can politely point out that North Dakota law allows you to record the conversation you’re part of. This scenario reflects the clearest case under current law.

If you secretly record a conversation where the speaker reasonably expects privacy—like a private conversation in a closed office—you could face criminal charges under North Dakota’s wiretap law. The penalties for intentionally intercepting a communication under the wiretap statute are a Class C felony for intentional interception and a Class A misdemeanor for eavesdropping or loitering to overhear. However, these penalties don’t apply to public police encounters or to video-only recording. The key factor is whether the speaker had a reasonable expectation the conversation wouldn’t be intercepted. If not, the law isn’t triggered. For police interactions in public, the risk of prosecution is low, but the legal protection isn’t absolute due to the Eighth Circuit’s cautious stance.

North Dakota’s wiretap chapter contains no location-based carve-out for homes versus other locations; the one-party consent rule applies uniformly regardless of where the oral communication occurs. The only home-related statute that could touch recording is a narrow sexual-voyeurism law, NDCC 12.1-20-12.2, which criminalizes secretly installing or using a device to observe or record sounds or events in a house or dwelling only when the actor enters upon another’s property and does so with sexual intent, and separately criminalizes surreptitious observation or recording of a tanning booth, hotel sleeping room, or other place with a reasonable expectation of privacy, but only when done with sexual intent. That statute would not apply to a wearable device capturing a dispute or police interaction. So, being in a private home does not add any additional restriction for this use case.