EnglishEspañol
Recording Laws

District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed August 26, 202613 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 37 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

The District of Columbia is a one-party consent jurisdiction under D.C. Code section 23-542(b)(3): any party to a conversation may record without notifying others, unless the recording is made to commit a criminal, tortious, or "any other injurious act." Violations are felonies carrying up to five years imprisonment and a $12,500 fine, and the District has expressly waived its governmental immunity for civil wiretap claims.

District of Columbia recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleOne-party consent
Main statuteD.C. Code section 23-542(b)(3)
When recording is illegalRecording a conversation you are not part of; or recording with a criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose
Criminal penaltyFelony: up to 5 years imprisonment, up to $12,500 fine (D.C. Code section 22-3571.01(b)(6))
Civil penaltyGreater of actual damages or $100/day or $1,000; plus punitives and attorney fees (D.C. Code section 23-554(a))
Hidden camerasVoyeurism: 1-year misdemeanor; distribution of voyeurism images: 5-year felony (D.C. Code section 22-3531)
Recording policeNo clearly established D.C. Cir. right; eight sister circuits have recognized the right (persuasive only)

For deeper coverage of each topic, see the in-depth guides below.

Recording in-person conversations in the District of Columbia

The District's wiretap statute, D.C. Code section 23-542, makes it a felony to willfully intercept, use, or disclose the contents of any wire or oral communication. Subsection (b)(3) carves out the one-party consent defense: a person not acting under color of law may lawfully record a conversation they are part of, or where one party has given prior consent. No notice to other parties is required.

The critical limitation is the purpose clause at the end of subsection (b)(3). The defense fails if the recording is made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, any State, or the District of Columbia, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act." That final phrase, "any other injurious act," extends the restriction beyond the federal floor. The federal one-party rule at (2)(d) only bars criminal or tortious purposes; D.C. adds an open-ended injurious-act category with no analog in most other one-party jurisdictions.

For everyday purposes the rule is straightforward: if you are in the conversation, you may record it. A journalist recording a source interview, a party recording an argument, an employee recording a meeting they attend, all fall within the defense. What would void it: recording a conversation specifically to use as leverage in an extortion scheme, or to facilitate harassment.

District of Columbia a small audio recorder and over-ear headphones resting on a stack of legal documents

Recording phone calls in the District of Columbia

The same one-party rule under D.C. Code section 23-542(b)(3) applies to phone calls: a participant may record without notifying the other party. This covers landlines, cell calls, and VoIP.

The interstate complication arises because the District borders Maryland (a strict all-party consent state under Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. section 10-402) and Virginia (a one-party state under Va. Code section 19.2-62). For a DC-to-Maryland call, courts applying the most-protective-jurisdiction rule would require all-party consent, so the safer practice is to notify or obtain Maryland-side consent. For DC-to-Virginia calls, both jurisdictions allow one-party recording and no conflict arises.

For detailed rules on phone recording, see District of Columbia Phone Call Recording Laws.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

D.C. Code section 22-3531 is the voyeurism statute. It has three conduct prongs: subsection (b) prohibits hidden observation posts or peepholes targeting someone in a bathroom, undressing, or engaged in sexual activity; subsection (c) prohibits electronically recording someone in those same contexts without express consent; subsection (d) prohibits capturing images of "private areas" (genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female breast below the areola) wherever the person has a reasonable privacy expectation.

Violating any of those three prongs is a misdemeanor under subsection (f)(1): up to 1 year imprisonment and a $2,500 fine. D.C. Code does not grade misdemeanors into lettered classes such as "Class A" the way many states do; the statute itself simply says "a misdemeanor." Distributing or publishing images obtained through a subsection (b), (c), or (d) violation is a separate felony under subsection (f)(2): up to 5 years and a $12,500 fine. That distribution felony is often overlooked and applies even if the original capture was, for example, a subsection (b) observation-post violation.

Practical applications: video-only security cameras in a home are generally lawful when pointed at non-private areas. A camera recording a bathroom or bedroom without consent is illegal regardless of whether the owner installed it. Audio-capable cameras add a wiretap layer; a homeowner who is not a participant in the conversation being captured cannot rely on the one-party defense for the audio portion. A District landlord may not install cameras in tenant bedrooms or bathrooms without express written consent. See District of Columbia Security Camera Laws and District of Columbia Voyeurism Laws for more.

District of Columbia a desk phone handset lifted slightly off its cradle on an office desk with a coiled cord

Penalties for illegal recording in the District of Columbia

Criminal penalties under D.C. Code section 23-542(a) are set by reference to the omnibus fine table at D.C. Code section 22-3571.01. Felony interception prosecutions in the District are handled by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (USAO-DC), not the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, because D.C. Code section 23-101 gives USAO-DC jurisdiction over all adult felonies.

Civil remedies under D.C. Code section 23-554(a) are unusually broad. A plaintiff recovers the greater of actual damages or $100 per day per violation or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. Procurement liability is express: whoever procured the illegal recording is jointly liable with the interceptor. Subsection (c) waives the District government's immunity for wiretap civil claims, allowing direct suit against D.C. agencies. The civil statute of limitations is 3 years under D.C. Code section 12-301(a)(8); the criminal felony SoL is 6 years under D.C. Code section 23-113(a)(4).

OffenseStatuteMax prisonMax fine
Illegal interception / disclosure / useD.C. Code section 23-542(a)5 years$12,500
Possession or sale of intercept devicesD.C. Code section 23-5435 years$12,500
Voyeurism (base offense)D.C. Code section 22-3531(f)(1)1 year$2,500
Distribution of voyeurism images (felony)D.C. Code section 22-3531(f)(2)5 years$12,500
NCII disclosure (misdemeanor)D.C. Code section 22-3052180 days$1,000
NCII publication (felony)D.C. Code section 22-30533 years$12,500
NCII downstream republication (misdemeanor)D.C. Code section 22-3054180 days$1,000

District of Columbia a dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling, soft interior daylight

Recording the police in the District of Columbia

Whether a civilian has a clearly established First Amendment right to record on-duty police in public is settled in eight other federal circuits but not in the D.C. Circuit. The leading D.C. Circuit authority on filming on government property is Price v. Garland, 45 F.4th 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1797 (2023). That case involved NPS commercial-filming permits, not civilian recording of police, but it applied only a "reasonableness" standard to filming on government property rather than the heightened scrutiny applicable to traditional public forums. The opinion creates a restrictive analytic backdrop for any future D.C. Circuit panel asked to recognize the civilian recording right.

Every numbered circuit that has squarely addressed the question has recognized the right (1st, 3d, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th). Those decisions bind only their own circuits; they are persuasive in the D.C. Circuit but not controlling. The practical result: civilians in the District have good doctrinal arguments supporting the right, but it is not clearly established at the circuit level for qualified-immunity purposes. MPD General Order GO-SPT-302.13 internally acknowledges civilian recording of police, which provides operational support at the agency level.

Civilians suing federal officers in the District (FBI, USCP, USPP, ATF, U.S. Marshals, etc.) face an additional constraint: Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793 (2022), sharply limits the availability of Bivens damages claims against federal officers for constitutional violations.

For more detail, see District of Columbia Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in the District of Columbia

Federal-property overlay

The District has the densest federal law-enforcement footprint in the United States, and recording rules shift depending on which jurisdiction controls the block. Capitol grounds are policed by the U.S. Capitol Police under 2 U.S.C. sections 1961 and following, and the Capitol Police Board is the body authorized to make and enforce regulations for the grounds. Those U.S. Code sections are enabling authority only. They establish policing jurisdiction and the Board's regulatory power; they set out no camera, tripod, or filming rules of their own. The operative equipment restrictions come from U.S. Capitol Police regulations and congressional press-gallery guidance, which are not published in the U.S. Code or the CFR and are revised from time to time. Hand-held recording by visitors in publicly accessible outdoor areas of the grounds is generally permitted, but confirm the current rules with the U.S. Capitol Police before setting up a tripod or any equipment that is not hand-carried.

The National Mall and federal monuments fall under 36 CFR sections 5.5 and 7.96 (NPS National Capital Region), as modified by the EXPLORE Act (Pub. L. 118-234), codified at 54 U.S.C. section 100905. Under that statute the National Park Service states that permits and fees are not required for filming, still photography, or audio recording that involves eight or fewer individuals, provided the activity occurs in areas open to the public, uses hand-carried equipment only, does not require exclusive use of a site, does not adversely impact park resources, values, or other visitors, and is not likely to result in additional administrative costs for the Park Service. GSA federal buildings fall under 41 CFR Part 102-74 and Federal Protective Service enforcement. The Pentagon falls under . The D.C.-to-federal jurisdictional transition often happens mid-block; D.C. Code section 23-542 only governs where D.C. has primary jurisdiction.

DC Body-Worn Camera Act

The DC Body-Worn Camera Act, D.C. Code sections 5-116.31 through 5-116.33, requires the Mayor to publicly release the names and BWC recordings of all MPD officers involved in an officer-involved death or serious use of force within 5 business days, subject to a next-of-kin consent exception. D.C. Law 25-175 (Secure DC, effective June 8, 2024) added three provisions: a prohibition on redacting officer likenesses (except undercover), a statutory definition of serious bodily injury, and a bar on officers reviewing BWC footage before writing their initial reports in covered incidents. Federal agencies (USCP, USPP, FBI, etc.) are not covered by section 5-116.33; federal BWC footage is accessed via FOIA to the relevant agency.

Nonconsensual intimate imagery and deepfakes

D.C. Code section 22-3052 (knowing disclosure, 180-day misdemeanor) and section 22-3053 (knowing publication, 3-year felony) criminalize NCII. The distinction is the verb: private disclosure is a misdemeanor; broader publication (posting online) is a felony. No recipient-count threshold appears in the statutory text. Section 22-3054 separately makes a downstream republisher who receives the image and republishes it liable as a misdemeanant. Section 22-3056 provides an affirmative defense where the disclosure or publication is made in the public interest, including reporting unlawful conduct, the lawful and common practices of law enforcement, or legal proceedings; it applies to violations of sections 22-3052, 22-3053, or 22-3054 and imposes no separate harm-minimization requirement. D.C. Law 25-268 (effective March 7, 2025) added a separate civil remedy at D.C. Code Title 7 Chapter 21D: up to $10,000 statutory damages per defendant under section 7-2165, plus punitive damages and attorney fees, with a 4-year statute of limitations under section 7-2166. The intimate-image definition at section 7-2161(7) does not expressly cover AI-generated deepfakes; application to synthetic media is litigation-untested. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) expressly reaches AI-generated digital forgeries; its platform 48-hour notice-and-takedown obligation took effect May 19, 2026. Pending D.C. Council bill B26-0524 (introduced December 1, 2025) would add explicit criminal coverage for digitally created intimate content, but as of June 2026 remains in committee.

Workplace recording: NLRA and federal sector

In the private sector, D.C. Code section 23-542(b)(3) permits a participant to record a workplace conversation they are part of. A covert non-participant recording in a break room cannot rely on the defense. The NLRB's controlling standard for employer no-recording policies under Section 8(a)(1) is Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023): a policy with a reasonable tendency to chill protected activity is presumptively unlawful unless the employer shows a legitimate business interest that cannot be served by a narrower rule. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) separately declares surreptitious recording of formal collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation, but its scope is limited to bargaining sessions. Federal-sector employees in the District are not covered by the NLRA; they fall under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. chapter 71, administered by the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

For more, see District of Columbia Workplace Recording Laws.

District of Columbia glass-walled conference room with figures behind translucent doors

  • May 19, 2026: Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act platform compliance (48-hour notice-and-takedown for NCII including AI deepfakes) took effect.
  • December 1, 2025: B26-0524 (Distribution of False Sexual Imagery Prohibition Amendment Act of 2025) introduced in D.C. Council; pending in committee as of June 2026.
  • June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 declared surreptitious recording of NLRA collective-bargaining sessions a per se unfair labor practice (narrow scope: bargaining sessions only).
  • May 19, 2025: TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) signed; criminal provisions covering NCII including AI deepfakes effective immediately.
  • March 7, 2025: D.C. Law 25-268 (UCRUDII Act) effective; created civil cause of action for unauthorized intimate-image disclosure (up to $10,000 statutory damages, 4-year SoL).
  • June 8, 2024: D.C. Law 25-175 (Secure DC) permanent provisions effective; added no-redact-officer-likeness rule and officer pre-report BWC review prohibition to section 5-116.33.
  • March 11, 2024: Mayor Bowser signed D.C. Law 25-175 (Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024).

District of Columbia recording laws in depth

Want to know more about how D.C. recording law applies in a specific context? Each guide below goes deeper than this hub.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More District of Columbia laws

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed District of Columbia attorney.

More District of Columbia Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the District of Columbia a one-party or two-party consent state?

The District is a one-party consent jurisdiction under D.C. Code section 23-542(b)(3). Any party to a wire or oral communication may record without notifying the other parties. The defense is voided only if the recording is made for a criminal, tortious, or 'any other injurious act' purpose. For federal wiretap law, 18 U.S.C. section 2510(3) expressly defines the District as a 'State.'

Can I record a phone call in Washington, D.C.?

Yes, if you are a party to the call. D.C. Code section 23-542(b)(3) allows one-party recording for landlines, cell calls, and VoIP. For a D.C.-to-Maryland call, Maryland's all-party consent rule under Md. Code Cts. and Jud. Proc. section 10-402 may apply, so obtaining consent from all parties is the safer practice. D.C.-to-Virginia calls need only one-party consent on both sides.

Is illegal recording a felony in Washington, D.C.?

Yes. Violations of D.C. Code section 23-542(a) are felonies punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $12,500 under D.C. Code section 22-3571.01(b)(6). Felony interception cases are prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, not the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, under D.C. Code section 23-101.

What can I sue for if someone illegally recorded me in D.C.?

Under D.C. Code section 23-554(a), you can recover the greater of actual damages or $100 per day per violation or $1,000 in liquidated damages, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. The District government cannot assert governmental immunity as a defense (section 23-554(c)). The civil statute of limitations is 3 years under D.C. Code section 12-301(a)(8).

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in D.C.?

Video-only cameras are generally lawful when the owner is the recorder and the camera does not capture enumerated private contexts covered by D.C. Code section 22-3531 (bathrooms, undressing, sexual activity). Audio-capable cameras add a wiretap consideration: a homeowner who is not a participant in the conversation being captured cannot rely on the one-party defense for the audio. Distributing any image obtained through a voyeurism violation is a separate 5-year felony under section 22-3531(f)(2).

Can I record my boss or an HR meeting in D.C.?

Yes, if you are present in the meeting. D.C. Code section 23-542(b)(3) permits participant recording with no advance notice. The covert-recording wrinkle: NLRB Stericycle (372 NLRB No. 113, 2023) means an employer no-recording policy may be challengeable as an unfair labor practice if it tends to chill protected Section 7 activity. Federal employees in the District are covered by FLRA precedent, not the NLRA.

Can I record the police in Washington, D.C.?

You likely can, but the right is not clearly established at the D.C. Circuit level for qualified-immunity purposes. The D.C. Circuit has no published civilian record-the-police opinion. Eight other circuits (1st, 3d, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th) have recognized the right, and those decisions are persuasive. MPD General Order GO-SPT-302.13 internally acknowledges civilian recording. Civilians suing federal officers also face Bivens constraints under Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793 (2022).

Does D.C. have a law against AI deepfake intimate images?

Not yet as a stand-alone criminal statute. D.C. Law 25-268 (effective March 7, 2025) provides a civil remedy for NCII with up to $10,000 statutory damages, but its intimate-image definition does not expressly cover AI deepfakes. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) expressly reaches AI-generated digital forgeries and its platform compliance obligation took effect May 19, 2026. D.C. Council bill B26-0524 (introduced December 2025) would add explicit AI / digital-technology coverage if enacted.

Updates

Corrected the federal-property section: National Mall filming now reflects the EXPLORE Act rule at 54 U.S.C. 100905 (no permit for eight or fewer individuals) instead of a superseded court-based five-or-fewer threshold, and Capitol-grounds camera rules are no longer attributed to statutory text that does not contain them.

Corrected the description of the D.C. Code section 22-3056 public-interest defense to state its actual statutory elements (no harm-minimization requirement was ever part of the law), and fixed a wrong subsection cite in the May 2026 changelog entry so it matches the correct $12,500 fine citation used throughout the rest of the page.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the voyeurism penalty description (D.C. Code Section 22-3531(f)(1)): the statute's actual text says only "a misdemeanor," with no "Class A" grading. The 1-year/$2,500 penalty figures were already correct and are unchanged.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Restructured page per recording-redo spec: added AEO lede, at-a-glance table, and reorganized into canonical section order (in-person / phone / hidden cameras / penalties / police / special topics / recent developments). Condensed ~400-line current page to readable hub format; preserved all verified statutes, case citations, and penalty figures. Special-topics subsections cover federal-property overlay, BWCA, NCII / deepfakes, and workplace recording. FAQ expanded to 8 questions. Verified D.C. Code sections 23-542, 23-554, 22-3531, and 22-3571.01 fine tiers against code.dccouncil.gov. No corrections to load-bearing facts; confirmed $12,500 max fine under section 22-3571.01(b)(6) for 5-year offenses, $2,500 for 1-year offenses. Retained all primary-source citations; removed no banlist links.

Wave 8 refresh. Added federal-overlay framing covering USCP, USPP, GSA, Pentagon, and NARA regulations. Added BWCA H2 with Secure DC (D.C. Law 25-175) amendments. Reframed the D.C. Circuit record-the-police section as unsettled with Price v. Garland restrictive analytic gravity (NOT a direct holding). Added D.C. Law 25-268 UCRUDII Act civil remedy (effective March 7, 2025). Corrected fine cap from $25,000 and $10,000 references to the verified $12,500 under D.C. Code section 22-3571.01(b)(4). Corrected the sovereign-immunity waiver citation from section 23-554(b) to section 23-554(c). Reframed sections 22-3052 / 22-3053 distinction as disclose-versus-publish (no recipient-count threshold). Noted that the January 23, 2026 35-AG xAI/Grok demand letter was led by NC AG Jeff Jackson, with D.C. AG Brian Schwalb as a signatory. Noted that the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act platform compliance deadline of May 19, 2026 takes effect five days from this refresh. Updated citations to use 36 CFR sections 5.5 and 7.96 for the National Mall (not section 1280.52, which is NARA-specific) and 32 CFR section 234.15 for the Pentagon (not section 228.8, which is NSA-specific).

Wave 8 refresh. Added federal-overlay framing covering USCP, USPP, GSA, Pentagon, and NARA regulations. Added BWCA H2 with Secure DC (D.C. Law 25-175) amendments. Reframed the D.C. Circuit record-the-police section as unsettled with Price v. Garland restrictive analytic gravity. Added D.C. Law 25-268 UCRUDII Act civil remedy (effective March 7, 2025). Corrected fine cap from $25,000 and $10,000 references to the verified $12,500 under D.C. Code section 22-3571.01(b)(6). Corrected sovereign-immunity waiver citation from section 23-554(b) to section 23-554(c). Reframed sections 22-3052 / 22-3053 distinction as disclose-versus-publish (no recipient-count threshold). Noted that the January 23, 2026 35-AG xAI/Grok demand letter was led by NC AG Jeff Jackson, with D.C. AG Brian Schwalb as a signatory. Noted that the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act platform compliance deadline of May 19, 2026 takes effect five days from this refresh. Updated citations to use 36 CFR sections 5.5 and 7.96 for the National Mall and 32 CFR section 234.15 for the Pentagon.

Added wearable recording device guidance covering AI voice recorders (Plaud) and smart glasses (Meta Ray-Bans) under District of Columbia one-party consent law.

DC Office of Police Complaints released its FY25 Annual Report. 81% of OPC investigations included BWC footage (up from 77% in FY24); BWC non-compliance rate fell to 17% (from 33% in FY24).

A bipartisan coalition of 35 state attorneys general led by North Carolina AG Jeff Jackson sent a demand letter to xAI / X regarding Grok-generated nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfake images. D.C. AG Brian Schwalb joined the coalition as a signatory.

B26-0524 (Distribution of False Sexual Imagery Prohibition Amendment Act of 2025) introduced in DC Council. Pending in committee.

NLRB General Counsel released GC 25-07, declaring surreptitious recording of NLRA collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3). Narrow scope: bargaining sessions only, not general workplace recording.

Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) signed. Criminal provisions effective immediately. Platform 48-hour notice-and-takedown compliance effective May 19, 2026.

D.C. AG Brian Schwalb issued a consumer alert warning District residents about AI-generated deepfake telemarketing scams that impersonate trusted contacts.

D.C. Law 25-268 (Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act of 2024) effective. Created D.C. Code Title 7 Chapter 21D. Civil cause of action with up to $10,000 statutory damages per defendant, plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. Statute of limitations: 4 years from discovery, tolled for minors until age 18.

NLRB Acting General Counsel released GC 25-05, a housekeeping rescission of multiple Biden-era General Counsel memoranda. Stericycle remains controlling Board law.

Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC one-to-one consent rule (FCC Order 23-107). Pre-amendment prior express written consent standard governs [TCPA](/us-laws/tcpa) robocall consent.

D.C. Law 25-175 (Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024) permanent law became effective. Added no-redact-officer-likeness rule, serious-bodily-injury definition, and officer pre-report BWC review prohibition to section 5-116.33.

Mayor Bowser signed D.C. Law 25-175 (Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024). Primary sponsor Councilmember Brooke Pinto (Ward 2).

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 classified AI-generated voices in robocalls as 'artificial or prerecorded' messages under the TCPA.

Sources and References

  1. D.C. Code section 23-541 (wiretap chapter definitions)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  2. D.C. Code section 23-542 (interception prohibited; civilian one-party-consent defense)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  3. D.C. Code section 23-554 (civil cause of action; sovereign-immunity waiver at subsection (c))(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  4. D.C. Code section 22-3571.01 (omnibus criminal fine proportionality)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  5. D.C. Code section 22-3531 (voyeurism)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  6. D.C. Code section 22-3052 (unlawful disclosure of intimate images, misdemeanor)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  7. D.C. Code section 22-3053 (first-degree unlawful publication of intimate images, felony)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  8. D.C. Code section 22-3054 (downstream republisher misdemeanor)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  9. D.C. Code section 22-3056 (NCII public-interest affirmative defense)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  10. D.C. Code section 5-116.33 (BWCA reporting and access)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  11. D.C. Code section 12-301 (civil statute of limitations)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  12. D.C. Code section 23-113 (criminal statute of limitations)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  13. D.C. Code section 23-101 (USAO-DC adult-felony prosecution authority)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  14. D.C. Code section 10-503.19 (USCP-MPD concurrent jurisdiction)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  15. D.C. Code Title 7 Chapter 21D (UCRUDII Act codified)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  16. D.C. Code section 7-2165 (UCRUDII remedies)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  17. D.C. Code section 7-2166 (UCRUDII statute of limitations)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  18. D.C. Law 25-268 (UCRUDII Act of 2024)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  19. D.C. Law 25-175 (Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
  20. B26-0524 bill status (Distribution of False Sexual Imagery, PENDING)(lims.dccouncil.gov).gov
  21. 18 U.S.C. section 2510 (ECPA definitions; DC is a 'State')(uscode.house.gov).gov
  22. 18 U.S.C. section 2511 (ECPA prohibitions; federal one-party consent floor)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  23. 18 U.S.C. section 2520 (federal Wiretap Act civil cause)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  24. TAKE IT DOWN Act, S. 146 (Pub. L. 119-12)(congress.gov).gov
  25. 36 CFR section 5.5 (commercial filming on NPS lands)(ecfr.gov).gov
  26. 36 CFR section 7.96 (National Capital Region special regulations)(ecfr.gov).gov
  27. 32 CFR section 234.15 (Pentagon Reservation visual recording)(ecfr.gov).gov
  28. 41 CFR Part 102-74 (GSA Federal Property Conduct Rules)(ecfr.gov).gov
  29. USCP Regulations and Prohibitions(uscp.gov).gov
  30. DOJ Justice Manual 9-7.000 (Electronic Surveillance)(justice.gov).gov
  31. MPD General Order GO-SPT-302.13 (Body-Worn Camera Program)(go.mpdconline.com)
  32. D.C. OOG Advisory Opinion OOG-2023-002(open-dc.gov).gov
  33. DC OPC FY25 Annual Report release(policecomplaints.dc.gov).gov
  34. NC DOJ release on 35-AG xAI/Grok demand letter (Jan. 23, 2026)(ncdoj.gov).gov
  35. NLRB Stericycle, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023)(nlrb.gov).gov
  36. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) narrow bargaining-session memo(nlrb.gov).gov
  37. Federal Labor Relations Authority(flra.gov).gov
  38. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (AI voice in robocalls)(docs.fcc.gov).gov
  39. RCFP Reporters Recording Guide: District of Columbia(rcfp.org)
  40. NPS commercial film and photo permits (EXPLORE Act, 54 U.S.C. 100905: no permit for eight or fewer individuals)(nps.gov)
  41. 2 U.S.C. section 1961 (U.S. Capitol Police jurisdiction over the Capitol Buildings and Grounds)(law.cornell.edu)
  42. 2 U.S.C. section 1969 (Capitol Police Board regulatory authority for the Capitol Grounds)(law.cornell.edu)
Share: