A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 24-02-45 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to cooperative agreements between the director and law enforcement agencies regarding license plate readers.
HB 1050 would amend North Dakota law governing cooperative agreements between the director of the Department of Transportation and counties or cities to expressly require the director to enter into agreements, upon request, with state, county, city, or certain federal law enforcement agencies for the placement of license plate readers on department-owned or department-operated equipment or infrastructure. The bill also extends this mandatory agreement authority to federal agencies with responsibilities related to national border control.
The measure specifies that the agreement terms would supersede existing provisions in sections 24-02-36 and 24-02-37, as well as any other state law governing the use of state, county, or city highway funds. In practical terms, the bill would create a clear statutory pathway for law enforcement and border-related agencies to deploy license plate reader technology using transportation department assets, while limiting conflicts with other highway-fund restrictions.
HB 1050 would directly affect section 24-02-45 of the North Dakota Century Code by changing discretionary cooperative agreements into mandatory agreements for license plate reader placement when requested by qualifying law enforcement or border-control agencies. It would expand the legal authority for use of department-owned or department-operated infrastructure for surveillance and enforcement purposes, and it would override other state laws that might otherwise restrict how highway funds or highway-related assets are used. The bill would primarily affect the Department of Transportation, state and local law enforcement agencies, and federal border-control agencies.
The available record shows little formal debate or recorded vote detail, but the bill’s introduction by the Transportation Committee at the request of the Attorney General suggests institutional support for the measure’s enforcement and border-security objectives. At the same time, the bill ultimately failed, indicating that it did not secure enough legislative support to advance. With no committee transcript available, the public record does not show detailed arguments for or against the proposal.
The main point of contention appears to be the bill’s expansion of license plate reader use and its requirement that the director enter into agreements on request, rather than at the director’s discretion. Supporters likely viewed the bill as improving law-enforcement coordination and border control, while opponents may have been concerned about privacy, surveillance, the use of transportation infrastructure for policing, and the bill’s override of existing highway-fund restrictions. Because the bill failed and no transcripts or votes are available, the specific positions of legislators or stakeholders are not documented in the provided record.