North Dakota Public Sexual Acts Facilitation Defense

North Dakota premises-offense guide

Facilitation of Sexual Acts in Public in North Dakota

N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-24 is not a general ban on viewing adult material, operating every adult-oriented business, or engaging in every public sexual act. It is a narrowly drafted premises offense. The State must connect a person to willful ownership, rental, leasing, management, or control of a portion of an adult entertainment center and then prove one of two prohibited physical arrangements. Floor plans, sight lines, lighting, fee structure, management authority, and the condition of the premises at the charged time matter more than the title’s broad wording suggests.

Quick answer

What does § 12.1-20-24 actually prohibit?

Covered facility: a commercial facility offering on-site viewing of motion pictures or videos containing explicit representations of defined sexual conduct. Hotel and motel guest rooms are excluded.

Covered defendant: a person who willfully owns, rents, leases, manages, or exercises control over the relevant portion of that facility. Willfully means intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly under current North Dakota culpability law.

theory one: a partition between room or area subdivisions contains an opening that facilitates a defined sexual act between people on opposite sides.

theory two: a fee-based viewing room, booth, stall, or partitioned area lacks either an open side that makes its interior visible from adjacent public space or lighting that makes people inside visible from that space.

Classification: ordinarily an infraction with a maximum $1,000 fine. Repeat-infraction treatment can create class B misdemeanor sentencing exposure only under the precise prior-conviction and charging requirements of § 12.1-32-01(7).

This section also contains a private-office exclusion and authorizes an injunction against a pattern of violations. A criminal count, an inspection order, and an injunction request raise related but distinct questions.

Direct representation

You will work directly with me.

If you are accused under this section, I will compare the exact premises, your actual authority, the inspection date, the facility’s use, the fee arrangement, and each statutory dimension or visibility requirement. A deed, lease, job title, or photograph can be important without proving every element.

Talk with me about the premises allegation

One offense with two premises theories

The State must prove facility, control, culpability, and a prohibited condition

The statutory noun “facilitation” does not eliminate the specific elements that follow. The case is about responsibility for a covered business space and its physical configuration.

Covered place: A commercial adult entertainment center offering the specified motion pictures or videos for viewing at the facility—not simply any building with adult content.
Connection to the place: Willful ownership, rental, leasing, management, or exercise of control over the particular portion containing the alleged condition.
Opening theory: A partition opening must be positioned between subdivisions and facilitate a statutory sexual act between individuals on opposite sides.
Fee-booth theory: A covered fee-based viewing enclosure must have both the required open side and lighting; absence of either supplies the alleged physical condition.

The statute does not require proof that a sexual act occurred

The opening theory asks whether the opening facilitates the defined act. The text does not expressly require the State to prove that people actually used it for that purpose in the charged incident. Evidence of use may bear on design, function, notice, and culpability, but the statutory premises condition must still be identified.

Official starting points

N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-24 — offense, definitions, private-office exclusion, and injunction.
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-02-02 — willfully defined through intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct.
N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-32-01 and 12.1-32-03.1 — infraction penalty and procedure.

Offense-date check: the current text must be compared with the law in force when the premises allegedly violated it. Later renovations, ownership changes, and photographs cannot silently substitute for the charged-time condition.

Is this an adult entertainment center?

Commercial use, on-site viewing, content, and the hotel-room exclusion must be established.

Who controlled this portion?

Contracts, keys, policy authority, work roles, maintenance power, and actual practice may point in different directions.

What was the charged layout?

Scaled plans, authenticated images, measurements, sight lines, and inspection timing should replace labels.

Was conduct willful?

The State must prove at least reckless engagement in the ownership or control conduct; status alone is not the complete analysis.

Who and what the law reaches

The title is broader than the operative text

The statute targets the person responsible for the relevant portion of a covered commercial facility. It does not, by its own terms, make a customer guilty merely for entering, watching a video, or occupying a booth. It also does not charge alleged participants with this premises offense merely because investigators believe a sexual act occurred. Other laws may address other conduct, but each count requires its own elements.

“Adult entertainment center” has three limiting features

First, the facility must be commercial. Second, it must offer motion pictures or videos for viewing at that facility. Third, those motion pictures or videos must include explicit representations of “sexual conduct,” a term incorporated from § 12.1-27.1-01. That definition lists actual or simulated intercourse, sodomy, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sadomasochistic abuse, excretion, and lewd exhibition of genitals. The State should identify the claimed content and the evidentiary basis for placing it within that list.

A business does not necessarily become an adult entertainment center because a device can access adult material, an employee possesses a file, or a customer streams content. The service actually offered, its commercial structure, where viewing occurs, how content is selected or supplied, and how the charged premises operated at the relevant time matter. The statute expressly excludes hotel and motel guest rooms from its facility definition.

“Person” can include an entity, but entity status is not the end

Title 12.1 defines “person,” where relevant, to include corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, unincorporated associations, and other legal entities. Chapter 12.1-03 separately regulates corporate or LLC responsibility and individual accountability for conduct on an organization’s behalf. An owner, operating entity, landlord, subtenant, manager, and employee may therefore occupy different legal positions.

The State should identify which status it alleges—owns, rents, leases, manages, or exercises control—and which portion of the premises it connects to that person. A remote property owner may hold title without managing booths. A manager may run daily operations without authority to rebuild. A maintenance contractor may alter a wall without controlling the business. A corporate officer’s title may not establish personal participation, and an employee’s access may not establish managerial responsibility. The contracts and actual practice both matter.

Willfully is broader than purpose but still requires culpability

Under § 12.1-02-02, a person acts willfully by engaging in the conduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Recklessness requires conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, amounting to a gross deviation from acceptable conduct. The statute should not be reduced to strict liability based only on a recorded ownership interest or employment title.

Notice may be powerful evidence of knowledge or recklessness: inspection reports, prior warnings, employee complaints, maintenance requests, photographs, correspondence, or earlier enforcement. But notice has its own authentication and meaning questions. Who received it? What portion did it identify? What condition existed then? Was it corrected? Did the accused have authority to act? A later inspection cannot automatically establish an earlier mental state.

The two physical arrangements must not be blended

Partition-opening theory

The first theory requires a partition between subdivisions of a room or area, an opening in that partition, and a function: the opening facilitates a sexual act between individuals on either side. “Sexual act” is defined in § 12.1-20-02 by specified human contact, including several forms of penetration and object contact. The physical relationship among the partition, opening, reachable spaces, and people on opposing sides must be proved rather than assumed from an inspector’s shorthand.

Dimensions may matter, but the statute does not supply a numerical size. Location, height, depth, barriers, distance, accessibility, permanent closures, fixtures, and actual ability to use the opening for the defined act may be more probative than its label. A ventilation opening, cable port, damage, decorative gap, or permanently sealed feature should be evaluated by its design and charged-time condition. Historical legislative materials included more colloquial language during consideration, but the enacted current code uses the functional phrase “opening that facilitates a sexual act.”

Fee-viewing enclosure theory

The second theory begins only if the room, booth, stall, or partitioned area is offered to individuals for a fee as an incident to viewing video, motion-picture, or similar entertainment. Admission records, tokens, card systems, memberships, receipts, posted pricing, equipment, and business testimony can show or dispute that commercial relationship. A storage room, restroom, office, or free waiting area should not be relabeled without evidence satisfying the fee-and-viewing language.

A covered enclosure avoids the prohibited condition only when it has both required features: at least one side open to adjacent public space so its interior is visible there, and lighting that makes people in the viewing area visible from that public space. The open-side and lighting clauses are cumulative. Still, “open,” “adjacent public space,” “visible,” and “lighted” must be applied to the actual layout, not to a photograph whose viewpoint, exposure, or time is unknown.

Private-office exclusion

An enclosure used as a private office by the owner, manager, or employees is outside the section when it is not held out or available to the public for fee-based viewing. Both use and public availability matter. A sign reading “office” is relevant but not conclusive if transaction records, customer access, viewing equipment, or testimony show another use. Likewise, an office containing a monitor does not become a public viewing booth merely because employees can play media.

Premises evidence to preserve

Deeds, master leases, subleases, management agreements, franchise or licensing documents, and corporate records.
Scaled floor plans, permit drawings, certificates, inspection reports, measurements, and authenticated photos or video.
Lighting type, placement, control settings, maintenance records, meter readings, and conditions at the alleged time.
Admission, token, membership, payment, and equipment records tying a fee to on-site viewing.
Work orders, repair requests, construction invoices, notices, correspondence, and proof of who had authority to modify the area.
Employee schedules, job descriptions, key or access logs, surveillance-retention information, and witness identities.
Evidence of renovations before and after inspection, kept separate by date.

Preserve; do not stage: do not reconstruct, reopen, close, brighten, darken, or relabel a space for photographs without documenting the change. Counsel may need a qualified investigator or expert to record the original condition lawfully.

Evidence and defense analysis

A reliable premises case needs dates, scale, provenance, and authority

Inspection photographs can distort sight and light

A photograph records a selected viewpoint using a particular lens, exposure, focus, flash, processing method, and display. Wide-angle images can exaggerate an opening. Automatic exposure can make a dim space appear bright or a lit space appear dark. A close view may omit the adjacent public area; a distant view may hide an obstruction. Authentication under Rule 901 asks whether the exhibit fairly represents what its proponent claims. The original file, metadata, device information, photographer, sequence, and unedited set help test that claim.

Measurements should identify the tool, calibration where material, reference points, and charged-time configuration. A floor plan prepared for a permit may differ from construction. A later sketch may omit doors, curtains, fixtures, or partitions. If visibility depends on a person’s position, evidence should document reasonable viewpoints in the adjacent public space, not only a specially chosen camera angle.

Lighting evidence needs conditions, not adjectives

“Dark,” “dim,” and “visible” are conclusions unless connected to observations and conditions. Investigators should document which fixtures worked, switch positions, bulb or lamp specifications, ambient light, doorway condition, time, viewing position, and whether equipment or occupants blocked the line of sight. A qualified expert may measure illumination and explain method and uncertainty, but the expert should not replace the court’s legal interpretation.

A burned-out lamp on one date may reflect maintenance rather than the condition during the entire charged period. Conversely, a new bulb after notice does not prove prior compliance. Work orders, receipts, surveillance, staff statements, and inspection history can anchor the timeline.

Control evidence must reach the particular portion

Ownership records can establish a legal interest while leaving operational authority disputed. A lease may allocate structural work to a landlord and booth operation to a tenant. A management agreement may reserve capital improvements to an owner. An employee may control access during a shift without authority over layout. The State’s theory should identify the relevant portion, the defendant’s authority over it, and how the defendant engaged willfully in the charged ownership or control conduct.

For an entity, board records, policy, communications, delegation, scope of employment, and the entity-liability provisions in chapter 12.1-03 may matter. For an individual acting for an organization, § 12.1-03-03 makes a person accountable for conduct personally performed or caused on the organization’s behalf. Neither corporate form nor personal title should be used as a shortcut around the conduct and culpability proof.

Discovery should reach the original inspection record

N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 supports requests for photographs, video, measurements, reports, notes, diagrams, witness statements, expert material, exculpatory information, and other discoverable evidence. The defense should obtain the complete inspection sequence, not only images selected for the complaint; communications about why the inspection occurred; earlier and later reports; notices and service records; and evidence of conditions inspectors did not photograph.

Rule 1001 addresses writings, recordings, photographs, and electronically stored information. Native files can reveal creation time, modification, camera data, and editing history. Rule 702 requires qualified expert testimony that will help the fact finder and rests on sufficient facts and reliable methods. Rule 401’s relevance threshold does not eliminate Rule 403 or other admissibility issues, and an expert should distinguish measured fact from statutory conclusion.

Search and entry authority can affect admissibility

A public business area, a restricted employee area, a locked office, and a closed premises can present different privacy and entry questions. The record may involve consent, a warrant, an administrative inspection regime, exigency, open-view observations, or another claimed authority. Counsel should examine who consented, the consent’s scope, any revocation, inspection notices, warrant language, areas entered, items seized, and whether the investigation shifted from regulation to criminal evidence gathering.

The remedy for an unlawful search depends on the facts and law. It is not responsible to promise suppression from the mere absence of a warrant or to assume business property has no Fourth Amendment protection. The exact entry, expectation of privacy, government purpose, statutory scheme, and later use of evidence require analysis.

Infraction, repeat treatment, and injunction

The ordinary case is fine-only, but the charging history still matters

Issue	Current rule	Qualification
Basic violation	Infraction	Maximum fine of $1,000 for a natural person under § 12.1-32-01(7).
Repeat treatment	May be sentenced as a class B misdemeanor	Requires at least two prior convictions of the same infraction within one year before the current offense and a complaint specifying misdemeanor treatment.
Class B misdemeanor ceiling	30 days and $1,500, or both	Only if the repeat-treatment requirements are satisfied.
Publicly furnished counsel and jury	Not available for an ordinary fine-only infraction	Section 12.1-32-03.1 recognizes those rights when imprisonment exposure exists under § 12.1-32-01(7).
Civil injunction	DHHS or the state’s attorney may seek to enjoin a pattern of violations	A pattern and equitable relief are separate from proving a particular criminal count.

An infraction remains a criminal offense

North Dakota applies criminal-case procedure to infractions subject to § 12.1-32-03.1’s specific incidents. The prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. A fine-only classification should not be confused with a civil ticket, and a business may face practical consequences from a conviction, injunction, licensing dispute, renovation order, publicity, or repeated enforcement.

Nonpayment jail is not the sentence for the underlying infraction

Section 12.1-32-03.1 generally prohibits imprisonment for an infraction except through the statute’s referenced nonpayment or repeat provisions. Fine imposition and a later response to nonpayment have separate requirements. A guide should not advertise “no jail under any circumstance,” but it also should not imply that the ordinary first infraction carries a jail maximum.

Registration should not be inferred from chapter placement

The current sexual-offender definition in § 12.1-32-15(1)(g) does not enumerate § 12.1-20-24. A conviction of this infraction alone therefore should not be described as automatically requiring sex-offender registration under that list. A separate registrable conviction, attempt or conspiracy rule, other jurisdiction, or offense-date provision may produce a different result and must be reviewed independently.

Pattern litigation and remediation

A remedial change can reduce future risk without conceding the past

The statute authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services or the state’s attorney with jurisdiction to bring an action to enjoin a pattern of violations. “Pattern” indicates more than an isolated label, but the current section does not supply a numerical definition. Inspection history, repeated notices, duration, separate areas, correction efforts, and recurrence may shape that dispute.

Businesses often need to address a physical condition promptly. Counsel can document the original state, preserve evidence, coordinate a lawful inspection, and advise on modification without treating remediation as an admission. New partitions, permanent closures, lighting changes, operational policies, access restrictions, employee training, and documented compliance reviews may affect future exposure while the historical allegation remains contested.

Criminal disposition and injunctive relief should be evaluated together. An agreed premises order could affect business operations more than an infraction fine; a plea description could influence later repeat treatment or licensing; and statements made during inspection or remediation may be used elsewhere. The responsible plan accounts for the physical fix, evidentiary record, business continuity, and exact legal admissions.

History is informative but the current text controls

The Legislature enacted this provision through 1997 H.B. 1387, chapter 126. The enrolled act created the adult-entertainment-center definition, the same two premises theories, the private-office exclusion, infraction classification, and injunction remedy reflected in current law. Conduct alleged before the provision took effect cannot be prosecuted under a statute that did not yet exist; later conduct requires the text and penalty law effective on the alleged date.

In 2021, H.B. 1247 amended subsection 4 as part of a government-wide health-and-human-services reorganization. For this section, that act changed the agency name in the injunction clause from the department of health to the department of health and human services. It did not change the criminal elements, the two physical-layout theories, the private-office exclusion, or the infraction classification. That distinction matters when using amendment history to analyze an offense date.

Session law and journals can illuminate the provision’s history, but proposed wording, debate descriptions, and colloquial terms are not substitutes for the enacted code. The prosecution must fit the offense-date statutory elements, and an injunction request must fit the agency authority then in force.

Pattern Jury Instruction Commission materials from 2012 identify § 12.1-20-24 for instruction work. Pattern instructions can help organize elements, but they are nonbinding aids and must yield to current statutes and controlling decisions. An official North Dakota Supreme Court opinion search rechecked through October 30, 2026 did not locate a published merits decision directly construing § 12.1-20-24. That is a disclosed search limitation, not a claim that no analogous, unpublished, trial-level, or later authority exists.

Answers to immediate questions

Frequently asked questions

Is every adult-oriented business covered?

No. The State must prove a commercial facility at which motion pictures or videos containing explicit representations of defined sexual conduct are offered for on-site viewing. The current definition excludes hotel and motel guest rooms.

Does the statute charge customers?

Section 12.1-20-24 targets willful ownership, rental, leasing, management, or control of the relevant portion. Customer conduct may implicate another law, but mere viewing or presence is not the premises offense stated here.

Must the State prove an actual sexual act occurred?

The opening theory requires an opening that facilitates a defined sexual act; it does not expressly require proof that the act occurred in the charged incident. Evidence of use may still bear on function, notice, or culpability.

What must a fee-based viewing booth have?

It must have at least one side open to adjacent public space so the interior is visible there and lighting that makes people in the viewing area visible from that public space. Both conditions matter.

Are private offices excluded?

An enclosure used as private office space by owners, managers, or employees is excluded when it is not held out or available to the public for fee-based viewing. Actual use and availability matter, not the room’s label alone.

What is the ordinary maximum penalty?

The offense is an infraction with a maximum $1,000 fine for a natural person. Repeat treatment can create class B misdemeanor exposure only when the two-priors-within-one-year and complaint requirements are met.

Does the infraction automatically require registration?

The current § 12.1-32-15 sexual-offender list does not enumerate § 12.1-20-24. This infraction alone should not be described as automatically registrable, although separate convictions or other law may matter.

What should be preserved?

Preserve ownership and lease documents, management agreements, original floor plans and images, measurements, lighting and maintenance records, fee and equipment records, notices, inspection materials, access records, and evidence of each renovation by date.

How I would work up this charge

A lawyer’s file review of Facilitation of Sexual Acts in Public in North Dakota

I do not assume the complaint’s narrative and its statutory citation line up. The practical work is to test that fit, identify what the State can actually prove, and separate a serious allegation from a legally sufficient case.

Read the count as a set of propositions the State must prove

The right starting point for Facilitation of Sexual Acts in Public in North Dakota is N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-20-24, 12.1-02-02, 12.1-27.1-01, and 12.1-32-01, read as it existed when the conduct allegedly occurred. I break the charge into the facts the law truly requires instead of treating the offense name as proof. Any fact that raises the degree or punishment gets its own question: who says it happened, what record supports it, and does the evidence satisfy the definition the statute uses?

I then place those answers on a timeline and test them against the complete record. A police summary may describe a witness, video, message, test, or prior conviction, but the underlying source matters more than the summary. Gaps, inconsistencies, and legal objections should be evaluated separately so that a real weakness is not confused with a technical complaint that has no remedy.

The evidence I would ask for first

For Facilitation of Sexual Acts in Public in North Dakota, I would not begin with a canned list of defenses. I would begin with the source file: every recorded interview, complete message and social-media exports, device-extraction reports and underlying data, provider records, medical or forensic records, location information, witness timelines, prior statements, and the material needed to evaluate consent, age, authority, force, coercion, identification, and the scope of any search. A police summary can identify what an officer or witness says happened, but it cannot substitute for the recording, photograph, data, or document being summarized. The same is true of a complaint. It identifies the prosecution’s theory at the start of the case; it does not prove the theory.

I put those materials on one chronology. That lets me see what was known at each decision point, which account was contemporaneous, what appeared only after people spoke with one another, and where the record is silent. It also keeps an admissibility question separate from a factual one. A fact can be disputed even if the evidence was lawfully obtained. Evidence can also be accurate yet inadmissible for a particular purpose. Those are different arguments and should not be blurred together.

Read the charging document against the offense date

The alleged date matters because statutes, penalty thresholds, definitions, sentencing rules, and published decisions change. I save the version in force on that date and read the session-law history when the current online text is different. I also check whether a later amendment was merely clarifying or made a substantive change; that is a legal question, not an assumption. The same discipline applies to prior convictions and administrative events. A prior must fit the definition the charged statute actually uses, fall within any stated lookback period, and be proved by a reliable record.

I then compare the formal count with the probable-cause narrative and the discovery. If the prosecution’s theory shifts, I want the amended pleading and enough detail to prepare. If several factual alternatives are alleged, I identify whether they are separate elements, alternative means, enhancement facts, or merely evidentiary details. That distinction affects notice, motions, jury instructions, unanimity arguments, and how a verdict form should be read.

Separate an evidentiary weakness from a suppression issue

Not every troubling fact produces a motion to suppress. Suppression ordinarily requires a constitutional, statutory, or rule-based violation with a remedy that reaches the evidence at issue. A weak identification, an incomplete investigation, or a witness inconsistency may be powerful at trial without making evidence inadmissible. By contrast, a stop, search, interrogation, identification procedure, warrant, or test can raise a legal issue even when the resulting evidence appears incriminating. I analyze both tracks and do not promise dismissal simply because one problem exists.

For a search issue, I reconstruct what officers knew before each intrusion and what authority they claimed. For a statement, I examine custody, questioning, warnings, voluntariness, recording, and the complete context. For scientific or technical evidence, I request the method, underlying data, quality-control material, uncertainty information, and chain of custody. For hearsay or confrontation questions, I identify the actual statement, its purpose, the declarant, and the proposed foundation. Specificity matters; “the evidence is bad” is not a motion.

Prepare negotiation and trial at the same time

A plea decision should be compared with the case the State could present at trial, not with the complaint’s maximum penalty in isolation. I want to know the strongest admissible proof, the weakest required element, the realistic motion practice, the likely instructions, and the consequences of every proposed disposition. That includes custody, probation, treatment, restitution, driving, firearm restrictions, registration, employment or licensing, immigration consultation, family-court effects, and record consequences when they are actually triggered. I avoid telling a client that every collateral consequence applies to every conviction.

Trial preparation gives negotiation its credibility. Witness interviews, exhibit review, motions in limine, expert consultation, demonstrative evidence, jury instructions, and a clean theory of the case force both sides to confront what can be proved. Negotiation can continue while that work is underway. The two tracks are not opposites.

A case-law point worth keeping in its proper place

Appellate decisions matter, but a quotation should not be detached from the issue the court was deciding. In State v. Hartson, 2024 ND 78, ¶ 26, the North Dakota Supreme Court explained that, on a sufficiency challenge, “we do not weigh conflicting evidence, or judge the credibility of witnesses.” That is an appellate-review rule, not a reduction of the State’s burden at trial. At trial, the prosecution still must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. I cite the case for the point it actually decided and then return to the charged statute, the instructions, and the admissible evidence in the present file.

What I would want you to understand before choosing an outcome

You should be able to identify the exact charge, the facts that set its level, the disputed elements, the evidence that matters most, the motions that have a legal basis, the realistic trial issues, and the concrete effect of each proposed resolution. If an answer depends on a missing report, recording, expert opinion, or certified record, I will say so. An honest answer about what remains unknown is more useful than a confident guess.

Questions clients usually ask next

Practical questions about Facilitation of Sexual Acts in Public in North Dakota

Can a lawyer tell me the likely outcome from the complaint alone?

No. The complaint shows the allegations and current charging theory. A responsible assessment also requires the alleged offense date, discovery, admissibility questions, verified history, court orders, and the consequences that matter to you. Early advice should identify what is known, what is disputed, and what records are still missing.

Does the maximum penalty mean that is the sentence I am likely to receive?

No. A statutory ceiling is the outer punishment authorized for the offense. It is not a forecast. The conviction offense, applicable minimums, sentencing rules or guidelines, criminal history, facts found or admitted, departures, restitution, probation conditions, and the negotiated or litigated posture all matter.

Should I send my lawyer screenshots or the original messages and files?

Preserve the originals whenever possible. Screenshots can be useful, but complete exports, original files, metadata, surrounding messages, and device information may show context that a cropped image does not. Do not alter, delete, or manufacture evidence, and do not contact a protected person or witness in violation of an order.

Is a plea discussion a sign that the defense has given up on trial?

No. A sound plea analysis depends on trial preparation. The defense should compare the offer with the admissible evidence, motions, instructions, sentencing exposure, and practical consequences. You can consider a proposal without surrendering the right to reject it.

What should I bring to the first defense meeting?

Bring the complaint or citation, court and release papers, the next hearing date, any license or administrative notice, the names of agencies and witnesses, and the original records you lawfully possess. Also identify the real-world concerns—custody, work, driving, licensing, family, immigration, housing, or reputation—that should shape the defense plan.

Authorities and source verification

These official sources were rechecked on October 30, 2026. The alleged offense date controls. Statutes, rules, history, opinions, and source links must be rechecked before case-specific advice or filing.

N.D.C.C. chapter 12.1-20 — § 12.1-20-24 offense and incorporated sexual-act definition.
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-27.1-01 — incorporated sexual-conduct definition.
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-02-02 — willfully and other culpability definitions.
N.D.C.C. chapter 12.1-01 — burden, elements, and person definition.
N.D.C.C. chapter 12.1-03 — entity, agent, accomplice, and individual accountability.
N.D.C.C. chapter 12.1-32 — infraction and class B misdemeanor ceilings and procedure.
1997 H.B. 1387, chapter 126 — session-law enactment history.
2021 H.B. 1247, § 21 — agency-name amendment to the injunction clause; no change to the criminal elements or classification.
Pattern Jury Instruction Commission materials — instruction history; pattern instructions are nonbinding aids.
N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 — discovery.
N.D.R.Ev. 401 — relevance.
N.D.R.Ev. 702 — expert testimony.
N.D.R.Ev. 901 — authentication.
N.D.R.Ev. 1001 — photographs, recordings, electronic information, originals, and duplicates.
North Dakota Supreme Court opinions — official opinion portal and disclosed search limitation.

Legal information, not legal advice. This guide provides general information about North Dakota law. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case-specific advice begins only after the offense date, facility definition, charged portion, ownership or control theory, culpability, layout, opening function, fee relationship, sight lines, lighting, private-office use, inspection authority, repeat history, entity law, injunction request, collateral consequences, and conflicts are reviewed and representation is agreed upon.