February 25, 2011
Bills Before The 61st Legislative Assembly In North Dakota That Would Affect The Private Investigation And Security Industries
HB 1224 was introduced by Rep. Dave Weiler of Bismarck at the request of a constituent who has had a long-standing feud with his neighbor who has installed a camera focused on the constituent’s window for the purpose of recording activity therein. Law enforcement declines to take any action to have the camera removed or diverted because no law is being broken. This bill would make it a Class B Misdemeanor to use a surveillance camera beginning seven days from the date that law enforcement directs him to stop. The House Judiciary Committee recommended a DO PASS by a vote of 14 – 0 and the bill passed on a floor vote by 93 – 0. It will now be considered by the Senate. The Private Investigation & Security Board (PISB) takes no position on this bill and no member of the Board testified for or against it.
HB 1249 was sponsored by Representatives Koppelman, Beadle, Kingsbury, Steiner and Delmore, and Senator Judy Lee and is somewhat similar to HB 1224 (above) in that it makes it a Class A Misdemeanor to enter, peep into or photograph anyone in a house, bathroom, sleeping room or tanning booth with the intent to arouse, appeal to or gratify lust, passions or sexual desires. This stems from a college student who concealed and activated a cell phone video camera to photograph a suitemate of the opposite sex taking a shower. Anyone found guilty of violating this law after having previously being convicted of this or similar sex crimes would be guilty of a Class C Felony. This too got a unanimous DO PASS in the House Judicial Committee and passed on the floor by a 93 – 0 vote. It is now before the Senate. The PISB takes no position on this bill and no member of the Board testified for or against it.
HB 1392, sponsored by Representatives Conklin, Kilichowski and Onstad, would make it a Class C Felony to intercept or record a conversation without the consent of both parties to said conversation. It has long been held in North Dakota that employees should have no expectation of privacy from employers in the workplace and that it is a one party consent state. The latter means that the consent of both parties to a conversation is not required to record or intercept a conversation as long as one of the parties consents. The House Judiciary Committee recommended a DO NOT PASS on this bill, it lost by an 8 – 84 vote on the floor, and is now dead. The bill was opposed by the ND Attorney General, the ND States Attorneys Association, the Chiefs of Police Association and the PISB.
HB 1433 was sponsored by Representatives Meyer, Devlin, Koppelman and Kilichowski, and by Senators Nodland and Lyson. It was introduced on behalf of one or two law enforcement officers from western ND who want to decide for themselves when they are working as sworn and active law enforcement officers and when they are working independently providing private security. The law presently allows active law enforcement officers to provide private investigative and/or security services as long as they are employed by a licensed and insured private investigative and/or security company. It was an effort to avoid licensing and insurance requirements for private investigators and security providers. The bill was amended to read that the PISB “may issue a license to an individual who is a peace officer if the license issued to that peace officer…is on inactive status,” and that bill passed on the House floor unanimously. It is the position of the PISB that the law, as amended and passed, implies that said peace officers on inactive status who are licensed by the PISB must meet all licensing and insurance requirements of the PISB. While not opposed to the bill as now written, it has been decided that someone representing the PISB will testify at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and ask that the bill be amended to include such language.
In a related matter, HB 1138, requiring licensing in South Dakota for private investigators and security providers, was recently introduced in the SD Legislature and was defeated. There is currently no provision for such licensure in SD and that remains the case with the defeat of this legislation. The bill would have given all authority to regulate and enforce the law to the SD Commissioner of Labor.
NDPISB News | About Us | Board Meeting
Schedule | Board Members