North Dakota
North Dakota Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
North Dakota is a one-party consent state for audio recording under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02. You may record any phone call or in-person conversation you participate in without notifying other parties, as long as the recording is not made for criminal or unlawful purposes.
North Dakota is a one-party consent state for audio recording. Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02, you can legally record any phone call or in-person conversation you participate in without informing other parties. The critical condition is that the recording must not be made for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm. Unlike New Mexico, North Dakota's statute covers both wire communications and oral (in-person) communications.
This guide covers the rules for audio recording in North Dakota, including when you can record, the unlawful purpose limitation, penalties for violations, interstate call rules, and how recordings are used as evidence.
How North Dakota's Audio Recording Law Works
The Statutory Framework
North Dakota's audio recording rules are found in Chapter 12.1-15 of the North Dakota Century Code. The key statutes are:
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02 establishes the crime of interception of wire or oral communications and eavesdropping.
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-03 covers trafficking in intercepting devices.
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-04 defines key terms including "oral communication," "wire communication," and "electronic device."
Under § 12.1-15-02, it is a Class C felony to intentionally intercept any wire or oral communication using any electronic, mechanical, or other device. The one-party consent exception allows recording when you are a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent, provided the recording is not for criminal or unlawful purposes.
What "One-Party Consent" Means in Practice
One-party consent means exactly one person in the conversation must know about and agree to the recording. That person can be you. Common scenarios:
- Recording a phone call you are on. Legal. You satisfy the consent requirement as a participant.
- Recording an in-person conversation you participate in. Legal. You are a party to the oral communication.
- Authorizing someone else to record on your behalf. Legal, if you are a participant giving prior consent.
The "Not for Criminal or Unlawful Purpose" Requirement
North Dakota's one-party consent exception includes a critical limitation. Both conditions must be met:
- You are a party to the communication, OR one party gave prior consent.
- The communication was NOT intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm.
This means even as a participant, recording for purposes of blackmail, extortion, fraud, or other criminal conduct removes the one-party consent protection.
| Purpose | Legal? |
|---|---|
| Documenting a workplace dispute | Yes |
| Recording evidence for civil litigation | Yes |
| Preserving a verbal agreement | Yes |
| Gathering evidence of harassment | Yes |
| Recording for blackmail or extortion | No |
| Recording to facilitate fraud | No |
| Recording to stalk or intimidate | No |
Key Definitions
Section 12.1-15-04 defines important terms:
- "Oral communication" means words spoken by a person who exhibits an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception.
- "Wire communication" refers to communications transmitted wholly or partially through wire, cable, or similar connection.
- "Electronic, mechanical, or other device" covers any device capable of intercepting wire or oral communications, excluding standard telephone equipment provided by a carrier.
Recording Phone Calls in North Dakota
Personal Phone Calls
You can record any personal phone call you participate in without informing the other party. This applies to:
- Cell phone calls
- Landline calls
- VoIP calls through Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and similar platforms
- Video call audio (FaceTime, WhatsApp video)
- Calls through messaging apps like Signal or Telegram
Business Phone Call Recording
North Dakota businesses can record calls for quality assurance, training, compliance, and dispute resolution. The employee on the call provides one-party consent. Many businesses announce recording as a best practice.
The federal FCC regulations on recording telephone conversations also apply to businesses.
Interstate Phone Calls
When you call someone in another state from North Dakota, both states' laws may apply. This is especially important because neighboring Montana is a two-party consent state.
Neighboring states with stricter rules:
- Montana requires all-party consent
Other all-party consent states:
- California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada (phone calls), New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington
When calling people in these states, inform all parties or get explicit consent before recording.
Recording In-Person Conversations
When Audio Recording Is Legal
North Dakota's statute covers "oral communications," meaning in-person conversations are regulated (unlike New Mexico, where they are not). You can record in-person conversations when:
- You are a direct participant in the conversation
- You have prior consent from at least one party
- The recording is not for criminal or unlawful purposes
When Audio Recording Is Illegal
Recording becomes illegal when:
- You are not a party and have no participant's consent
- You are eavesdropping on a private conversation using a device
- The recording is for criminal or unlawful purposes
- You engage in "secret loitering" to overhear conversations with intent to vex, annoy, or injure others (Class A misdemeanor under § 12.1-15-02, subsection 2)
The Secret Loitering Provision
North Dakota has a unique provision that makes it a Class A misdemeanor to secretly loiter about a building to overhear conversations or discourse with intent to repeat or publish them to vex, annoy, or injure others. This targets eavesdroppers who physically position themselves to listen to private conversations.
Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording
Criminal Penalties
North Dakota imposes severe penalties for illegal audio recording:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intentional interception | Class C Felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Disclosure of intercepted communications | Class C Felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Secret loitering to eavesdrop | Class A Misdemeanor | 360 days | $3,000 |
| Trafficking in intercepting devices | Class C Felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07.4, a class C felony or class A misdemeanor sentence carries a presumption of probation by default, regardless of prior record, unless the offense involves domestic violence, is subject to sex-offender registration, involves a weapon or explosive device, or carries a mandatory term of incarceration. A court may depart from that presumption only upon finding a specific aggravating factor: a prior felony or class A misdemeanor conviction, the age or vulnerability of the victim or a position of trust, or the use of force, threats, or coercion.
Civil Liability
North Dakota's wiretapping statute does not include a specific civil cause of action for victims. However, victims can pursue:
- Invasion of privacy tort claims under North Dakota common law
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress claims
- Negligence claims in appropriate circumstances
- Protective orders in cases involving harassment or domestic violence
Federal Penalties
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) also applies, with criminal penalties up to 5 years in federal prison. Federal civil liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, or statutory damages equal to the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, per civil action, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees.
Using Audio Recordings as Evidence
Admissibility in North Dakota Courts
Lawfully recorded audio is generally admissible as evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings. Courts evaluate recordings based on:
- Authentication: Can you prove the recording is genuine?
- Relevance: Does it relate to an issue in the case?
- Hearsay rules: Some statements may face hearsay objections
- Prejudicial vs. probative value: Does the value outweigh potential prejudice?
Best Practices for Preserving Recordings
- Use a reliable recording device with clear audio quality
- Do not edit or alter the recording
- Preserve the original file with metadata
- Note the date, time, location, and parties present
- Store backups securely
- Provide recordings to your attorney early
Common Audio Recording Scenarios
Can I Record My Landlord?
Yes, during conversations you participate in. This is useful for documenting repair disputes, harassment, or verbal agreements.
Can I Record My Doctor?
Yes. You can record medical appointments you attend. This helps with remembering treatment instructions and documenting informed consent.
Can I Record My Boss?
Yes, as long as you are a participant and not recording for an unlawful purpose. Be aware of company recording policies.
Can I Record Government Officials?
Yes. North Dakota's Open Records and Meetings Law also permits recording of public government meetings.
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
More North Dakota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to audio record a conversation in North Dakota without the other person knowing?
Yes, if you are a participant in the conversation and the recording is not for criminal or unlawful purposes. North Dakota is a one-party consent state under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02.
Can I record a phone call in North Dakota?
Yes. You can record any phone call you participate in without announcing the recording. For interstate calls to two-party consent states like Montana, the stricter law typically applies.
What is the penalty for illegal audio recording in North Dakota?
Illegal interception is a Class C felony carrying up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Secret loitering to eavesdrop is a Class A misdemeanor with up to 360 days in jail and a $3,000 fine.
Can I record for the purpose of gathering evidence in North Dakota?
Yes. Recording conversations to gather evidence for civil litigation, document harassment, or preserve verbal agreements is legal as long as you are a participant. The recording must not be for criminal or unlawful purposes.
Can audio recordings be used as evidence in North Dakota courts?
Yes. Lawfully recorded audio is generally admissible in both criminal and civil proceedings. The recording must be authenticated, relevant, and its probative value must outweigh any prejudicial effect.
Updates
Corrected the description of the federal civil-damages formula under 18 U.S.C. 2520, which is the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $100/day or $10,000 (not a flat $10,000 minimum), and corrected the presumptive-probation rule under N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-07.4, which applies by default regardless of a defendant's prior record, not only to first-time offenders.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the presumptive-probation citation for Class C felonies from N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-01 (which only sets penalty classifications, with no probation language) to the correct section, N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-07.4 (Presumptive probation).
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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 17 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 2026-08-31 · 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.
§ 12.1-32-01Classification of offenses - PenaltiesIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Offenses are divided into seven classes, which are denominated and subject to maximum penalties, as follows: Class AA felony, for which a maximum penalty of life imprisonment without parole may be imposed. The court must designate whether the life imprisonment sentence imposed is with or without an opportunity for parole. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12-59-05, a person found guilty of a class AA felony and who receives a sentence of life imprisonment with parole, shall not be eligible to have that person's sentence considered by the parole board for thirty years, less sentence reduction earned for good conduct, after that person's admission to the penitentiary. Class A felony, for which a maximum penalty of twenty years' imprisonment, a fine of twenty thousand dollars, or both, may be imposed. Class B felony, for which a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment, a fine of twenty thousand dollars, or both, may be imposed. Class C felony, for which a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, a fine of ten thousand dollars, or both, may be imposed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Cited in 67 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Brown (North Dakota Supreme Court 2009, 2009 N.D. 150)“…ws ch. 116, § 23. The current relevant statutory provision, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-01, lists the various categories of crimin…”
- State v. Magnuson (North Dakota Supreme Court 1997, 571 N.W.2d 642)“…lony charge of murder. The penalty provision for the crime, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-01(1), said a person found guilty of a cla…”
- State v. Vickerman (North Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 981 N.W.2d 881)“…ceeding his life expectancy with parole implicitly violates N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-01(1). Our review “of a criminal sentence…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 12.1-32-07.4Presumptive probationIn force
The sentencing court shall sentence an individual who has pled guilty to, or has been found guilty of, a class C felony offense or class A misdemeanor offense to a term of probation at the time of initial sentencing, except for an offense involving domestic violence; an offense subject to registration under section 12.1-32-15; an offense involving a firearm or dangerous weapon, explosive, or incendiary device; or if a mandatory term of incarceration is required by law. The sentencing court may impose a sentence of imprisonment if the sentencing court finds there are aggravating factors present to justify a departure from presumptive probation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Christensen (North Dakota Supreme Court 2019, 2019 ND 11)“…ation and as required by the presumptive probation statute, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07.4(1). The court found there were no aggra…”
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 418 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 2026-08-28 · 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.
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 115 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02(ndlegis.gov).gov
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-01(ndlegis.gov).gov
- ND AG Open Records(attorneygeneral.nd.gov).gov
- FCC Recording Guide(fcc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07.4 - Presumptive Probation(ndlegis.gov).gov