North Dakota

North Dakota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (2026)

Independently fact-checked Editor-reviewed Law current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished March 24, 2026Reviewed August 15, 20267 min read

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. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

North Dakota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (2026)

Key Takeaways

1North Dakota has a dedicated voyeurism statute: N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12.2 (surreptitious intrusion), which covers both visual and audio surveillance of a person without consent in a dwelling, hotel sleeping room, or tanning booth. Base offense is a Class A misdemeanor; enhanced to Class C felony on a second offense, on prior sex-offense history, or when the victim is a minor. Note: § 12.1-20-12.1 is indecent exposure (the actor's own genitals), not voyeurism.
2Distributing intimate images without consent is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 360 days in jail and $3,000 fine.
3Hidden cameras in bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas can result in criminal charges under privacy and disorderly conduct statutes.
4N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-07.2 is the criminal NCII statute (Class A misdemeanor). Civil NCII relief is available under Chapter 32-49 (UCRUDIIA), enacted by 2023 SB 2041 replacing § 32-03-58, with up to $10,000 in statutory damages per defendant (or actual damages, whichever is greater) and a six-year statute of limitations from discovery. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (signed May 19, 2025) adds a federal civil and criminal layer for AI-generated NCII distributed online.
5Victims can pursue civil invasion of privacy claims and intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuits.

Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12.2, North Dakota prohibits surreptitious visual or audio surveillance of a person without consent in a dwelling, hotel room, or tanning booth. A first violation is a Class A misdemeanor, elevated to a Class C felony for a repeat offense or when the victim is a minor.

North Dakota has a dedicated voyeurism statute. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12.2 (surreptitious intrusion) criminalizes both visual and audio surveillance of a person without consent in a dwelling, hotel sleeping room, or tanning booth. This is distinct from N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-07.2, which addresses the distribution of intimate images. A common point of confusion: § 12.1-20-12.1 covers indecent exposure (the actor exposing their own genitals) and is not the voyeurism statute.

This guide covers what North Dakota law prohibits regarding voyeurism and hidden cameras, penalties for violations, how these laws interact with recording consent rules, and remedies available to victims.

North Dakota's Approach to Voyeurism

The Legal Framework

North Dakota's voyeurism legal framework is built on several statutes:

N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12.2 is the voyeurism statute (surreptitious intrusion). It covers visual or audio capture without consent in a dwelling, hotel room, or tanning booth. Class A misdemeanor base; Class C felony for second offense, prior sex-offense triggers, or victim is a minor.
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-07.2 criminalizes knowing distribution of intimate images without consent (Class A misdemeanor). The definition expressly includes "computer or computer-generated image or picture," covering AI-generated content.
Chapter 32-49 UCRUDIIA (2023 SB 2041, replacing § 32-03-58): civil cause of action for nonconsensual intimate image distribution. Up to $10,000 in statutory damages per defendant (or actual damages, whichever is greater), six-year statute of limitations from discovery.
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31-01 disorderly conduct can apply to intrusive surveillance behavior.
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02 covers interception of oral communications (the wiretap statute).

What Constitutes Voyeurism in North Dakota

Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12.2 and related statutes, the following conduct is prohibited:

Hidden cameras in private spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, bedrooms, and changing rooms
Distribution of intimate images captured without consent or distributed without consent
Peeping into private areas using devices or physical positioning
Upskirting and similar concealed camera tactics that invade bodily privacy

Places Where Privacy Is Expected

North Dakota courts recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in:

Bathrooms and restrooms
Locker rooms and changing areas
Bedrooms in private residences
Hotel and motel rooms
Hospital rooms and medical examination areas
Tanning booths and spa treatment rooms
Dressing rooms in retail stores

Intimate Images Distribution: N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-07.2

North Dakota closed file folder with a single paper clip on a clean light wood desk

What the Law Covers

Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-07.2, it is a crime to knowingly distribute intimate images of another person without that person's consent when:

The images were created under circumstances where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy
The distribution causes actual emotional distress to the depicted person
The distributor knows the depicted person did not consent to the distribution

Penalties

Offense	Classification	Maximum Penalty
Distribution of intimate images	Class A Misdemeanor	360 days jail, $3,000 fine

What Qualifies as "Intimate Images"

The statute covers photographs, digital images, videos, and visual recordings showing intimate parts of a person or depicting a person engaged in sexual activity.

Hidden Cameras: Common Scenarios

North Dakota stack of sealed white envelopes with a wax seal visible on the top one

Hidden Cameras in Rental Properties

Landlords who install hidden cameras in rental units face potential criminal charges for disorderly conduct, harassment, or other applicable offenses. Tenants who discover hidden cameras should document the camera, contact law enforcement, and consult with the North Dakota Attorney General's office.

Hidden Cameras in the Workplace

Employers who install cameras in bathrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas face criminal liability. Employees who discover improper surveillance should report it to HR, law enforcement, and the North Dakota Department of Labor.

Hidden Cameras in Hotels

Hotel guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hidden cameras in hotel rooms are illegal. Report discoveries to local police and hotel management.

Federal Law: TAKE IT DOWN Act

North Dakota three smartphones around a blank document on a wooden desk

The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed May 19, 2025, adds a federal layer:

Criminalizes publishing or threatening to publish "intimate visual depictions" (including AI-generated images) without consent with knowledge or reckless disregard of non-consent.
Requires online platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours of notice.
Creates a federal civil cause of action for victims.

Victims of AI-generated intimate image distribution in North Dakota now have remedies under federal law, North Dakota Chapter 32-49 UCRUDIIA, and the criminal § 12.1-17-07.2.

Defenses and Civil Remedies

Common Defenses

Consent of the person depicted
No reasonable expectation of privacy in the recording location
Lack of knowledge that the camera was recording

Civil Remedies for Victims

Victims can pursue:

Chapter 32-49 UCRUDIIA (civil NCII): up to $10,000 in statutory damages per defendant (or actual damages, whichever is greater), six-year statute of limitations from discovery. Enacted by 2023 SB 2041, replacing § 32-03-58.
Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act civil action: for intimate images (including AI-generated) distributed online without consent.
Invasion of privacy tort claims for compensatory damages
Intentional infliction of emotional distress claims
Injunctive relief ordering removal of distributed images
Restraining orders preventing further contact

The North Dakota Legal Self Help Center provides resources for individuals seeking legal remedies.

North Dakota's wiretapping statute under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02 covers audio interception with one-party consent. Voyeurism laws address the visual component that the wiretap statute does not cover. When recording includes both video and audio, both sets of laws may apply simultaneously.

More North Dakota Recording Laws

Back to North Dakota Recording Laws

More North Dakota Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is voyeurism a crime in North Dakota?

Yes. North Dakota has a dedicated voyeurism statute: N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12.2 (surreptitious intrusion), which covers visual or audio surveillance of a person without consent in a dwelling, hotel room, or tanning booth. It is a Class A misdemeanor base offense with a Class C felony enhancement for repeat offenses or minor victims. Separately, § 12.1-17-07.2 criminalizes distribution of intimate images. Note: § 12.1-20-12.1 is indecent exposure, not voyeurism.

What is the penalty for distributing intimate images in North Dakota?

Distribution of intimate images without consent is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 360 days in jail and a $3,000 fine. The images must have been taken where the person had a privacy expectation and distribution must cause actual emotional distress.

Can my landlord put hidden cameras in my apartment in North Dakota?

No. Tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside their rental units. Hidden cameras in apartments can result in criminal charges. Landlords can place cameras in common areas like hallways and parking lots.

Is upskirting illegal in North Dakota?

Yes. Upskirting invades bodily privacy and can be prosecuted under disorderly conduct, harassment, or other applicable statutes. Distribution of images obtained through upskirting violates N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-07.2.

What should I do if I find a hidden camera in North Dakota?

Document the camera with photographs, do not remove it, and contact local law enforcement immediately. Consult an attorney about civil remedies. You can also contact the North Dakota Attorney General's office for guidance.

Updates

August 15, 2026

Corrected the intimate-images distribution statute's mental-state element from a 'knows or should know' standard to the actual-knowledge standard the statute requires, and corrected three instances of the civil NCII statutory-damages figure, which is a $10,000 per-defendant cap available as an alternative to actual damages, not a flat guaranteed award.

August 15, 2026

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 8, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

March 24, 2026

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

§ 12.1-20-12.2Surreptitious intrusionIn forcecited in 4 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.

Also relied on in: North Dakota Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), North Dakota Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and GPS Tracking (2026), North Dakota Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)

§ 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.