North Dakota Dash Cams: No Windshield Exemption, So the Dashboard Is the Safe Mount

Compare what other states wrote. Texas grants an express exemption for a navigation display and lists sixteen windshield allowances; Florida sets out a closed list of permitted windshield items. North Dakota did neither. Section 39-21-39 is short, and reading it end to end shows there is nothing for a camera to fall into: subsection 1 is the obstruction rule, subsections 2 and 3 are about wipers, subsection 4 is the transmittance rule, and subsection 5 is the only relief in the section for the windshield and it is written for nonreflective sunscreening or window tinting material rather than for an object. Section 39-21-39.1 adds that a windshield may not be shattered or in such a defective condition that it materially impairs or obstructs the driver's clear view. Nowhere in chapter 39-21, or in the definitions at section 39-01-01, does the phrase camera or recording device appear in connection with the windshield.

That leaves two hurdles for a suction-cup mount. Subsection 1 prohibits driving with any sign, poster or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield, side wings, or side or rear windows which obstructs the driver's clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway. That rule turns on obstruction, so a small camera tucked behind the mirror head may survive it. Subsection 4 is the harder one, because it reaches any object, material or tinting displayed, affixed or applied on the front windshield or any window, and requires the object in conjunction with that glass to leave a light transmittance of at least seventy percent on the windshield and thirty-five percent on any other window. A camera housing passes no light at all, so it fails the arithmetic wherever it is stuck, high or low.

The one place the statute stands down is behind the driver. The closing sentence of subsection 4 says the subsection does not apply to windows behind the operator if the vehicle has outside mirrors on both sides meeting section 39-21-38, which requires a mirror reflecting a view of the highway for at least two hundred feet, that is 60.96 meters, to the rear. A rear-facing camera on the back glass of a car with both mirrors is therefore outside the transmittance rule entirely. Subsection 1 still applies to side and rear windows, but only where the device obstructs the driver's clear view.

Nothing in chapter 39-21 regulates an object resting on the dashboard, on the centre console or clipped to a vent, and section 39-21-46(4) confirms the point by providing that nothing in the chapter may be construed to prohibit additional parts and accessories on any vehicle not inconsistent with the chapter. The practical constraints there are the mirror requirement in section 39-21-38 and the modification rules in section 39-21-45.1, neither of which a small camera touches.

Using the device is governed separately. Section 39-08-23(1) bars the operator of a motor vehicle that is part of traffic from using a wireless communications device to compose, read or send an electronic message, and section 39-08-23(2)(b) defines traffic to include a temporary stop such as at a signal or sign while excluding a lawfully parked vehicle. A dash cam recording on its own is not caught, because section 39-08-23(2)(a)(5) excludes data transmitted automatically by a wireless communication device without direct initiation by an individual, and subparagraph 3 excludes a multi-function device used for a purpose that is not otherwise prohibited. Reviewing footage on a phone while stopped at a light is a different matter and is inside the prohibition. Section 39-08-24 imposes a stricter rule on drivers at least sixteen and under eighteen holding a class D licence, and section 39-01-01(20) defines an electronic communication device to include video display equipment while excluding a global positioning system or navigation system and any device physically or electronically integrated into the motor vehicle.

Audio is worth a thought if the camera records sound. Section 12.1-15-02(3)(c) gives a one-party-consent defense where the actor is a party to the communication or one party consented, and section 12.1-15-04(5) confines the protected subject matter to an oral communication uttered with an expectation, justified by the circumstances, that it is not subject to interception. A camera left running while the owner is out of the vehicle and passengers talk privately is the situation those definitions were written for.

A windshield mount is charged under section 39-21-39. Section 39-06.1-08(2) makes a section 39-21-39 violation a nonmoving violation when it is discovered at a time the vehicle is not actually being operated, carrying the $20 fee in section 39-06.1-06(1); found while the vehicle is being driven it is a chapter 39-21 moving violation under section 39-06.1-09, also $20 under section 39-06.1-06(2). Section 39-21-46(1) requires that the driver or owner knew the vehicle was equipped in violation of the chapter, and section 39-06.1-10(3)(a)(9) assigns 2 points for knowingly driving with unlawful equipment in violation of section 39-21-46. Handling the device while driving is a separate and far more expensive offense: section 39-06.1-06(2)(d) sets the fee for a section 39-08-23 violation at $100. Both charges may be resolved by paying the statutory fee under section 39-06.1-02 or by requesting an administrative hearing under section 39-06.1-03, since neither appears on the section 39-06.1-05 excepted list.