Is North Dakota a one-party consent state?
Last updated: · Reviewed quarterly
Yes. N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02 gives a defence where the actor was a party to the communication, or one party consented, provided the recording was not made to commit a crime or other unlawful harm. Two things about North Dakota are unusual: the consent provision is framed as a defence rather than an exception, and there is no civil remedy at all.
The short answer
Record your own meetings in North Dakota and you have the statutory defence. Whether the statute even reaches a mobile call is an open question nobody has answered.
The statute
§ 12.1-15-02 covers wire and oral communications. The consent provision is framed as a defence, not an exception: it applies where "the actor was a party to the communication or one of the parties … had given prior consent … and … such communication was not intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm". An expectation of privacy is required on the in-person branch.
One live gap. RCFP notes the statute covers communications "transmitted wholly or partially through wire, cable, or other like connection", so cellphone and other wireless conversations may fall outside it entirely, and the courts have not clarified. That cuts both ways: it may mean no state rule applies to a mobile call at all, in which case the federal one-party floor governs.
What happens if you get it wrong
A Class C felony for intentionally intercepting a wire or oral communication, and equally for intentionally disclosing contents known to be so obtained. Separately, secretly loitering about a building intending to overhear conversation inside and repeat or publish it is a class A misdemeanor. Terms and fines are unclear from the sources we read.
RCFP states flatly that the law does not authorise civil lawsuits against violators, and § 12.1-15-02 as reproduced contains no damages provision. North Dakota and New York are the two states in this survey with no statutory private right of action. That rests on a single source plus the absence of a provision rather than on an affirmative citation.
If the other person is in another state
Being one of the people in the conversation answers the question for North Dakota. It does not answer it for whoever is on the other end. No rule settles which state's law applies when the participants are in different places, more than one may apply at once, and courts have reached opposite results on comparable facts. If anyone on the call might be in an all-party state, the safe posture is theirs rather than yours. The general problem is on the US overview.
What to say
Nothing in North Dakota law requires you to say anything, which is a different thing from it being a good idea. The reason to announce it anyway is the person on the other end of the call, who may be somewhere stricter, and the reason to ask rather than tell is that it puts an answer on the record instead of an assumption.
I'm recording this for notes, stored on my machine only. Any objection?
Then leave a beat. Longer versions, and what to do when someone says no, are on telling people you're recording.
Where Earkeep sits in this
Earkeep records continuously and announces itself to nobody: no bot in the participant list, no banner on anyone else's screen. In a one-party state that is legally unremarkable, and it is still the reason nobody in the room knows unless you say so.
The controls exist for when somebody would rather you didn't. A pause from the live edge releases the microphone and the system audio stream, so your operating system's own recording indicator goes dark and the person who asked can watch it happen rather than take your word for it. A meeting on a connected calendar can be marked never-record. And a stretch of the day, or a saved meeting with its transcript, can be purged: the lines come out of the file on your own disk and nothing is written in their place, with no server copy to reconcile against because there is no server.
None of that makes a recording lawful anywhere, and the audio never leaving your device is not an answer to a consent statute. It is a good answer to "where does this go", which is usually the question the room actually has.
Sources
Frequently asked questions
Is North Dakota a one-party consent state?
Yes, though the mechanism is framed as a defence rather than an exception: the actor must have been a party, or had one party's prior consent, and the recording must not have been made to commit a crime or other unlawful harm.
Does North Dakota law cover mobile phone calls?
Possibly not. RCFP notes the statute reaches communications transmitted wholly or partially through wire, cable or other like connection, which may leave wireless conversations outside it, and no court has clarified. Where the state statute does not reach, the federal one-party rule does.
Can I sue someone for recording me in North Dakota?
Not under this statute. RCFP states the law does not authorise civil lawsuits against violators, and the section contains no damages provision. That makes North Dakota one of only two states in this survey without a statutory claim.
Related
- US recording laws, state by state: the federal baseline, the cross-border problem, and all 51 jurisdictions.
- Telling people you're recording: the scripts, and the three ways to stop.
- Private by design: why the audio never leaves your computer.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. It summarises statutes and cases rather than replacing them, and we are not lawyers. If the answer matters, ask someone who can be held to their answer.
Ask the room, then keep the answer
14-day full trial, no account required.