Is it legal to record phone calls in North Dakota?
Yes, generally. North Dakota is a one-party consent state: you may record a phone call you take part in without telling the other person, because your own consent satisfies the rule. Recording calls you are not part of is illegal. When the other person may be in an all-party consent state like California or Florida, disclose the recording anyway.
What North Dakota law says
North Dakota follows one-party consent for phone calls, consistent with the federal Wiretap Act: as long as one participant — and you count — consents, the recording is lawful. The rule covers conversations you participate in; intercepting other people’s calls remains a crime. Bear in mind the rule protects you within North Dakota — interstate calls can implicate stricter states’ laws, which is why professionals default to disclosure.
North Dakota is a one-party consent state for oral and wire communications: interception is lawful when you are a party or have one participant's consent, unless you are doing so to commit a crime or other unlawful harm. Illegal interception is a class C felony. The statute separately criminalizes secretly loitering near a building to overhear and publish private conversations. Cellphone coverage is unsettled because the wire-communication definition references line-based transmission.
"A person is guilty of a class C felony if that person intentionally or knowingly intercepts or attempts to intercept any wire or oral communication by use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device, or intentionally or knowingly discloses or attempts to disclose to another person the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication in violation of this section." — N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02(1), subject to the one-party consent exception in subsection (4).
North Dakota's § 12.1-15-02(4) aligns with federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) for participant recordings. Because North Dakota provides no statutory civil remedy, victims of illegal interception may pursue federal civil damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 when federal law is violated. The criminal-or-unlawful-purpose limitation in North Dakota parallels but is not identical to the federal tortious-purpose carve-out.
North Dakota follows the standard one-party model in § 12.1-15-02(4): a party to the communication, or anyone with one party's prior consent, may record — provided the interception is not for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm. Your own participation is sufficient; no announcement required. Oral communications are protected only when the speaker has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A separate misdemeanor provision bans secretly loitering around a building to overhear discourse and then repeating or publishing it with intent to vex, annoy, or injure — an old-fashioned anti-eavesdropping rule unrelated to participant recording. Like New Mexico, North Dakota's wire-communication definition references transmission through wire, cable, or similar connection, and courts have not clearly held whether pure cellular calls are covered. Until they do, treat cellphone calls as subject to the one-party rule. North Dakota's wiretap chapter does not create a statutory civil cause of action; victims must rely on common-law tort theories or federal remedies.
| Consent rule for phone calls | One-party consent |
| Recording calls you're part of | Allowed — your own consent is sufficient. |
| Calls with people in other states | The stricter state's rule may apply — when in doubt, disclose. |
What breaking the law costs in North Dakota
Illegal interception or disclosure is a class C felony — up to five years and a $10,000 fine. Secret loitering and malicious publication is a class A misdemeanor — up to one year and $2,000.
No private right of action in the state wiretap statute. Federal civil remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 may apply to conduct that also violates federal law.
Exceptions worth knowing
- One-party consent when the recorder is a party or has one participant's prior consent, if not for criminal or unlawful purposes (§ 12.1-15-02(4))
- Oral communications in public with no reasonable expectation of privacy
- Law enforcement interception under court order
- Communication common carriers acting in the ordinary course of business
How North Dakota courts have ruled
Statutes set the rule; cases show how it plays out when a recording ends up in front of a judge. These are real, decided cases under North Dakota law.
What happened: A confidential informant wore a wire during controlled methamphetamine buys with Loh; police recorded the conversations without obtaining a separate warrant for the body wire.
The ruling: The Supreme Court held Loh had no reasonable expectation of privacy during criminal drug transactions with an informant and denied suppression, applying the one-party consent framework under state and federal law.
What happened: Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations after filming police activity; the Eighth Circuit (which includes North Dakota) addressed the right to record public officials.
The ruling: The court favorably cited sister circuits recognizing a First Amendment right to record police performing duties in public, though it did not need to definitively resolve the question on the facts presented.
What happened: The defendant challenged evidence obtained through electronic surveillance during a criminal investigation, arguing improper authorization under North Dakota's interception statutes.
The ruling: The Supreme Court analyzed whether the interception complied with North Dakota's wiretap chapter and the statutory consent defenses available to law enforcement and participants.
Personal calls vs. business calls in North Dakota
Recording personal calls
You can record phone calls and private conversations you are part of in North Dakota without telling the other person, as long as you are not doing it to commit a crime or other unlawful harm. That covers documenting harassment, custody disputes, and landlord conflicts. Secretly loitering outside someone's home to overhear and publish their conversations is a separate misdemeanor. Do not intercept calls between other people without one party's consent — that is a class C felony.
Recording business calls
North Dakota businesses may record customer calls when an employee is a party. Because the state lacks a statutory civil wiretap remedy, civil exposure is lower than in many states — but criminal felony liability remains. Cellular and VoIP coverage is unsettled; announce recording on business lines as a precaution and to satisfy all-party states on interstate calls.
Calls that cross state lines
North Dakota has no leading choice-of-law decision. Follow the strictest state's consent rule on cross-border calls. The absence of a state civil wiretap remedy does not protect recorders from criminal prosecution or from civil suits in the callee's home state.
The safe way to record in North Dakota
Whatever the local rule, one habit covers every situation: say the call is being recorded at the start. Consent is then on the recording itself, and cross-border calls stop being a legal puzzle. Callmark can play "This call may be recorded" automatically on your calls, so the disclosure never depends on your memory.
For the full national picture — every all-party state, cross-border rules, and consent mechanics — see our state-by-state consent guide.
Sources and further reading
Statutes, court opinions, and reference guides cited on this page. Laws change — verify current text before relying on it for anything consequential.
- N.D. Cent. Code ch. 12.1-15 (official text, ND Legislative Branch)
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — North Dakota recording guide
- State v. Loh, 780 N.W.2d 719 (N.D. 2010) — vLex
- Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020) — CourtListener
- Justia 50-State Survey — Recording Phone Calls
Common questions
Yes. As a participant in the call, your consent satisfies North Dakota’s one-party rule. Disclosure is still wise whenever the other party might be in an all-party consent state.
Courts have applied different states' laws to interstate calls, and you often can't verify where a mobile number is. The practical rule: assume the strictest state applies and disclose the recording.
In most states, continuing a call after a clear "this call may be recorded" announcement is treated as implied consent — the same mechanism customer-service lines rely on.
Yes, under one-party consent in § 12.1-15-02(4), provided you are not recording for criminal or other unlawful purposes.
Unclear. The wire-communication definition references line-based transmission, and courts have not definitively ruled on cellular calls. Use one-party consent as the safe default.
Not under the state wiretap statute, which has no civil cause of action. You may have common-law privacy claims or federal remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 2520.
A class C felony — up to five years and $10,000 under § 12.1-15-02.
Generally yes, when a consenting participant is involved. State v. Loh applied this principle to confidential informant recordings in drug cases.
Record responsibly in North Dakota, automatically.
Built-in disclosure · automatic transcripts and summaries · 200 minutes included
Get Callmark