North Dakota House Bill HB1102

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/7/25
• Refer: 1/7/25
• Report Pass: 1/13/25
• Refer: 1/13/25
• Report DNP: 2/6/25

Caption

A BILL for an Act to provide an appropriation to the attorney general for bureau of criminal investigation cybercrime resources.

Summary

HB 1102 would appropriate $775,000 from the state general fund to the North Dakota attorney general for the Bureau of Criminal Investigation to add two full-time cybercrime agent positions and purchase related equipment and capital assets for the 2025-2027 biennium. The bill is narrowly targeted: the new personnel and resources must be dedicated to assisting a police department in a northeastern North Dakota city with at least 50,000 residents in preventing and detecting cybercrime. The appropriation includes $161,000 identified as one-time funding for equipment. In practical terms, the bill would increase state support for cybercrime enforcement capacity within the BCI and direct those resources to a specific local law enforcement need, rather than creating a broad statewide program or changing criminal statutes.

Impact

HB 1102 would have amended state spending law by adding a one-time general fund appropriation to the attorney general for cybercrime enforcement resources. It would not have changed criminal definitions, penalties, or investigative authority, but it would have funded two new BCI cybercrime agent positions and related equipment for the 2025-2027 biennium. The bill’s effect would have been to expand state investigative capacity and direct those resources to a specific police department in northeastern North Dakota.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had limited support and ultimately failed on the House floor, with a 20-69 vote on second reading. The available record suggests the measure was framed as a public-safety and technology-enforcement appropriation, but the decisive defeat indicates the chamber was not persuaded to approve the spending request. No committee transcript is available to show detailed debate, so the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the vote and the bill’s failure.

Contention

The main point of contention was likely the targeted nature of the appropriation: the bill would have dedicated state funds and personnel to assisting a single police department in one northeastern city rather than distributing cybercrime resources more broadly across the state. Another likely issue was the cost of the new positions and equipment, including the one-time funding component, in a general fund appropriation. Because no committee discussion is available, the specific objections are not documented, but the floor vote suggests substantial disagreement over whether this was an appropriate use of state funds and whether the benefit was too localized.