District of Columbia Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties

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 other injurious act. Violations are felonies carrying up to five years imprisonment.

Quick answer

Yes, the District of Columbia is a one-party consent jurisdiction under D.C. Code section 23-542(b)(3): any party to a wire or oral communication may lawfully record without notifying the other parties. The defense is voided, however, if the recording is made for the purpose of committing any criminal act, any tortious act, or "any other injurious act," a purpose-limit phrase that is broader than the federal one-party floor at 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d). Criminal violations are felonies carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a $12,500 fine under D.C. Code section 22-3571.01(b)(6), and the District has expressly waived governmental immunity for wiretap civil claims at D.C. Code section 23-554(c). Recording on federal land in the District, including the Capitol grounds, the National Mall, federal buildings, and the Pentagon, is governed by federal regulations rather than the D.C. Code, because the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Park Police, the Federal Protective Service, and the Pentagon Force Protection Agency hold concurrent jurisdiction with the Metropolitan Police Department under the 1997 Police Coordination Act.

Information last verified on May 14, 2026. This article presents general legal information about recording laws in the District of Columbia and has not been reviewed by a licensed attorney for application to any specific situation.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses recording law in the District of Columbia under the D.C. Code, the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and federal regulations governing recording on federal land in the District. The District is a federal district, not a state. Many federal agencies hold concurrent law-enforcement jurisdiction throughout the city, so recording rules vary block by block depending on whether you are on D.C., federal, or NPS land. For sibling state hubs see Maryland recording laws and Virginia recording laws, and for the parent map see United States recording laws.

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

The District of Columbia is a one-party consent jurisdiction for audio recording under D.C. Code section 23-542(b)(3). A person not acting under color of law may lawfully intercept a wire or oral communication where that person is a party to the communication, or where one party has given prior consent, unless 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. The "any other injurious act" phrase makes the District's purpose-limit broader than the federal one-party-consent floor at 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d), which reaches only "criminal or tortious" purposes.

The District is technically not a state. It is a federal district whose code is simultaneously a federal statute (every D.C. Council enactment is subject to a 30-day or 60-day congressional review period under the Home Rule Act, D.C. Code section 1-206.02) and a local code (enacted by the elected D.C. Council). For purposes of federal wiretap law, however, 18 U.S.C. section 2510(3) expressly defines "State" to include the District of Columbia, so the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act applies in the District the same way it applies in any of the 50 states.

For most everyday recording, the consent rule is simple: if you are part of the conversation, you may record. You do not need to give a "this call is being recorded" notice. You do not need permission from the other party. The two-party rule used in Maryland, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington State does not apply in the District. The complication, addressed below, comes when a District resident calls someone in Maryland, or when the recording occurs on federal land where federal agency regulations layer on top of the D.C. Code.

What D.C. Code section 23-542 actually says

D.C. Code section 23-542 is the District's wiretap-and-electronic-surveillance statute, modeled on Title III of the federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and updated to track the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Subsection (a) is the prohibition: it is a felony to willfully intercept, willfully use, or willfully disclose to any other person, the contents of any wire or oral communication. The penalty clause adopts the omnibus fine framework at section 22-3571.01: a violator "shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in section 22-3571.01 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Subsection (b) sets out the exceptions. Subsection (b)(1) covers communication-carrier employees performing service-quality functions. Subsection (b)(2) covers law enforcement and parties acting under color of law where one party has given prior consent. The civilian one-party-consent rule lives in subsection (b)(3):

"It shall not be unlawful under this section for ... a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, unless such communication is intercepted 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." D.C. Code section 23-542(b)(3)

The purpose-limit at the end of subsection (b)(3) is the most consequential clause in the statute. Three categories of purpose void the defense: a criminal purpose, a tortious purpose, or "any other injurious act." The "any other injurious act" phrase has no analog in the federal Wiretap Act. Federal section 2511(2)(d) reaches only "criminal or tortious" purposes. The District and Iowa are among the small number of U.S. jurisdictions to attach an express "any other injurious act" extension to the one-party defense. The practical consequence is that an in-state participant who would clear the federal floor by recording for, say, a non-criminal but malicious motive may still face exposure under D.C. Code section 23-542 if a court finds the motive injurious.

Subsection (c) adds a related prohibition: the contents of any unlawfully intercepted communication may not be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, or other authority of the District of Columbia. Subsection (d) limits law-enforcement disclosure of lawfully intercepted communications to the performance of official duties.

Definitions live one section earlier at D.C. Code section 23-541: "wire communication" tracks the federal definition (aural transfers made through a network connection); "oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation; and "intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

Criminal and civil penalties under D.C. Code sections 23-542 and 23-554

The criminal cap is fixed by D.C. Code section 22-3571.01, the District's omnibus criminal-fine proportionality statute enacted via the Criminal Fine Proportionality Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Law 19-317). Section 22-3571.01 sets fine ceilings by offense-severity tier. A section 23-542 wiretap violation is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment, which places it in the 5-year tier at section 22-3571.01(b)(6) with a maximum fine of $12,500. The legacy "$10,000" figure that still appears in some older legal databases is the pre-2012 standalone amount and was superseded by the omnibus section 22-3571.01 framework. The "$25,000" figure is the 10-year tier (section 22-3571.01(b)(7)) and does not apply to section 23-542.

Offense	Statute	Tier	Maximum prison	Maximum fine
Illegal interception (wire or oral)	D.C. Code section 23-542(a)	section 22-3571.01(b)(6)	5 years	$12,500
Illegal disclosure of intercepted content	D.C. Code section 23-542(a)	section 22-3571.01(b)(6)	5 years	$12,500
Illegal use of intercepted content	D.C. Code section 23-542(a)	section 22-3571.01(b)(6)	5 years	$12,500
Possession or sale of intercept devices	D.C. Code section 23-543	section 22-3571.01(b)(6)	5 years	$12,500
Voyeurism (base)	D.C. Code section 22-3531(f)(1)	section 22-3571.01(b)(5)	1 year	$2,500
Voyeurism distribution (felony)	D.C. Code section 22-3531(f)(2)	section 22-3571.01(b)(6)	5 years	$12,500
NCII disclosure (misdemeanor)	D.C. Code section 22-3052	section 22-3571.01(b)(4)	180 days	$1,000
NCII first-degree publication (felony)	D.C. Code section 22-3053	section 22-3571.01(b)(6)	3 years	$12,500
NCII downstream republisher	D.C. Code section 22-3054	section 22-3571.01(b)(4)	180 days	$1,000

Felony interception prosecutions in the District go to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (USAO-DC) rather than to the D.C. Office of the Attorney General. Under D.C. Code section 23-101, USAO-DC handles all adult felony prosecutions in the District, a federal-enclave quirk that has no analog in any of the 50 states. The OAG (led by Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb) prosecutes misdemeanors, juvenile offenses, civil enforcement, and consumer-protection matters. So an MPD case under section 23-542 will be charged by USAO-DC; a section 22-3052 misdemeanor NCII case will be charged by OAG.

The civil cause of action at D.C. Code section 23-554 is among the strongest state-level wiretap remedies in the country. Subsection (a) provides:

"Any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this subchapter shall (1) have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use, such communications, and (2) be entitled to recover from any such person (A) actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000 whichever is higher; (B) punitive damages; and (C) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred." D.C. Code section 23-554(a)

A plaintiff therefore recovers the greater of actual damages or $100 per day or $1,000 in liquidated damages, plus punitive damages, plus attorney's fees and costs. Procurement liability is express in subsection (a)(1): the procurer is jointly liable with the interceptor. Subsection (b) supplies a good-faith reliance defense for any defendant who acted in good-faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization.

The most distinctive feature of section 23-554 is the sovereign-immunity waiver at subsection (c):

"For purposes of this section, 'person' includes the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia shall not assert any governmental immunity to avoid liability under this section." D.C. Code section 23-554(c)

The District has affirmatively waived governmental immunity for wiretap civil claims, allowing direct civil suit against the District government. The waiver does not reach the federal government, which would be addressed separately under the Federal Tort Claims Act or under 18 U.S.C. section 2520 (the federal Wiretap Act civil cause).

Statutes of limitations: section 23-554 contains no internal SoL, so the general civil catchall at D.C. Code section 12-301(a)(8) supplies a 3-year period for any action for which a limitation is not otherwise specially prescribed. Plaintiffs may also bring a parallel federal claim under 18 U.S.C. section 2520, whose discovery-rule SoL at subsection (e) is 2 years. Criminal felony prosecutions under section 23-542 fall under the general 6-year felony catchall at D.C. Code section 23-113(a)(4).

Federal-agency overlay: Capitol grounds, the Mall, and federal buildings

Recording in the District frequently crosses jurisdictional lines from D.C. Code coverage to federal-regulation coverage, often in the same block. The District has the densest federal law-enforcement footprint in the United States. The Metropolitan Police Department is the primary local agency, but the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP), the U.S. Park Police (USPP), the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division, the FBI, ATF, DEA, U.S. Marshals, Federal Protective Service, and Pentagon Force Protection Agency all operate alongside MPD. The legal framework for this overlap is the 1997 Police Coordination Act, enacted as Title VIII of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33) and codified in part at D.C. Code section 10-503.19 (USCP-MPD concurrent jurisdiction) and D.C. Code section 5-133.17 (cooperative agreements with federal agencies). USCP concurrent jurisdiction extends roughly 200 blocks around the Capitol complex, and MPD holds cooperative agreements with at least 32 federal law-enforcement agencies.

U.S. Capitol Police (Capitol grounds)

The U.S. Capitol Police operate under statutory authority at 2 U.S.C. sections 1961 through 1969 and publish their own visitor regulations. Hand-held shooting of video on the Capitol grounds is generally permitted unless it impedes vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Tripod use outside designated free-press areas requires a USCP tripod permit. Video recording on the East Front and West Front steps of the Capitol is prohibited. Commercial audio and video recording equipment, along with tripods, are typically listed as prohibited items during special events such as State of the Union addresses, joint sessions of Congress, and Presidential Inaugurations. Electronic media covering events inside the Capitol or on the Capitol grounds must be accredited by the House Radio-Television Correspondents Galleries.

USCP regulations apply on USCP-jurisdiction grounds: the Capitol building, the House and Senate office buildings, the Library of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court grounds (jointly with the Supreme Court Police), and the surrounding Capitol Square. One block outside that boundary, MPD has primary jurisdiction and D.C. Code section 23-542 governs the audio side.

U.S. Park Police and NPS (National Mall, monuments, Rock Creek Park)

The National Mall and the federal monumental core (Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument, Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Korean War Veterans Memorial, World War II Memorial), Rock Creek Park, and the District sections of the George Washington Memorial Parkway are National Park Service land. Two federal regulations govern: 36 CFR section 5.5 (commercial filming, still photography, and audio recording on NPS lands generally) and 36 CFR section 7.96 (National Capital Region special regulations). These are the correct regulations for the Mall. 36 CFR section 1280.52, which sometimes appears in older references, is NARA-specific and governs filming at National Archives facilities only.

In Price v. Barr, 514 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D.D.C. 2021), the District Court held the historical permit-and-fee requirements for commercial filming under 54 U.S.C. section 100905, 43 CFR Part 5, and 36 CFR section 5.5 facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. NPS responded with interim guidance: low-impact filming (groups of 5 or fewer, hand-held equipment or small tripods, no models or sets, no impact on resources) is exempt from advance notice and permit requirements; larger commercial productions may need a permit; audio recording generally does not require a permit unless one of the four section 5.5 triggers is met. Tourists, citizen-journalists, and content creators recording on the National Mall under low-impact conditions therefore generally do not need an NPS or USPP permit. See NPS interim filming guidance.

GSA federal buildings and Federal Protective Service

Photography at federal buildings within the District (Treasury, IRS, the State Department, Commerce, DOJ Main Justice, the FBI Hoover Building, and others) is governed by 41 CFR sections 102-74.420 through 102-74.470 (GSA Federal Property Conduct Rules), enforced by the Federal Protective Service. Photography inside federal buildings is generally subject to building-management consent and security restrictions. Photography of building exteriors from public sidewalks remains protected First Amendment activity subject to reasonable time, place, and manner regulation.

Pentagon and NSA facilities

Recording on the Pentagon Reservation is governed by 32 CFR section 234.15 (Use of visual recording devices), part of 32 CFR Part 234 (Conduct on the Pentagon Reservation). The Pentagon Force Protection Agency enforces. 32 CFR section 228.8 sometimes appears in older references as the Pentagon rule but is actually NSA-specific (Security Protective Force, NSA facilities, Fort Meade primarily) and does not govern the Pentagon. Use section 234.15 for the Pentagon and section 228.8 only for NSA facilities.

Federal investigators and DOJ Justice Manual section 9-7.302

Federal investigators working in the District (FBI, ATF, USSS, U.S. Marshals, DEA, USCP, USPP) operate under DOJ Justice Manual section 9-7.302, which sets procedures for warrantless consensual monitoring of verbal communications under 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(c). Sensitive cases (Members of Congress, attorney-client situations, members of the news media) require Department-level written authorization. JM section 9-7.302 is particularly important in the District because USAO-DC prosecutes the bulk of adult felonies under section 23-101.

The DC Body-Worn Camera Act and 5-business-day release rule

The DC Body-Worn Camera Act, codified at D.C. Code sections 5-116.31 through 5-116.33, is arguably the strongest BWC transparency statute in the United States. It was originally enacted via D.C. Law 21-36, section 3002, effective October 22, 2015, and substantially clarified by the Secure DC amendments in 2024.

The core public-release rule at D.C. Code section 5-116.33 reads:

"Within 5 business days after an officer-involved death or the serious use of force, the Mayor shall publicly release the names and body-worn camera recordings of all Metropolitan Police Department officers who: (i) discharged their firearm; or (ii) otherwise used serious force during the incident." D.C. Code section 5-116.33

The Mayor shall not release a BWC recording if the affected next of kin, or the individual involved in the serious use of force (or, if incapacitated or deceased, the next of kin), informs the Mayor orally or in writing that they do not consent. Disputes about consent are resolved by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Prior to public release of an officer-involved-death BWC recording, MPD must consult with a trauma-and-grief organization, provide actual notice to next of kin at least 24 hours before release, and offer next of kin the opportunity to view privately in a non-law-enforcement setting.

The 5-business-day release rule for officer-involved death and serious use of force was part of the original 2015 enactment under D.C. Law 21-36. It is not a Secure DC creation.

Secure DC clarifications (D.C. Law 25-175, 2024)

D.C. Law 25-175 (the Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024) was signed by Mayor Bowser on March 11, 2024 on a permanent and emergency basis. The permanent law became effective June 8, 2024 after the 30-day congressional review period. Primary sponsor was Councilmember Brooke Pinto (Ward 2, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety).

Secure DC added three BWC provisions to section 5-116.33:

1. No redaction of officer likeness. The likenesses of any local, county, state, or federal government law-enforcement officers acting in their professional capacities, other than those acting undercover, shall not be redacted or otherwise obscured when BWC recordings are released under this section.
2. Serious-bodily-injury definition. A new statutory definition (extreme physical pain, protracted disfigurement, organ damage, or protracted unconsciousness) clarifies the existing "serious use of force" release trigger that has been in the statute since 2015.
3. No pre-report officer review. Officers may not review BWC recordings before initial report writing in officer-involved-death or serious-use-of-force cases.

What Secure DC did not add: the 5-business-day release rule itself. That rule, and the underlying serious-use-of-force release trigger, were in the original 2015 statute.

MPD General Order and OOG Advisory Opinion 2023-002

At the agency level, MPD General Order GO-SPT-302.13 (Body-Worn Camera Program) implements the BWCA. Section IV.G prohibits on-scene viewing of BWC recordings at the scene of an incident, with limited exceptions tied to General Order GO-RAR-901.07 (Use of Force) for serious-use-of-force events. Download privileges for BWC recordings are limited to members of the rank of sergeant and above, civilian equivalents, IAB investigators, and FOIA specialists.

D.C. Office of Open Government Advisory Opinion OOG-2023-002, issued September 15, 2023 by OOG Director Niquelle Allen, held that MPD misapplied D.C. FOIA Exemption 2 in partly redacting images of uniformed officers without proper justification. Even on a public street, third-party civilians recorded on BWC video may retain a privacy interest under Exemption 2 depending on the facts. The advisory opinion is non-binding but persuasive in BWC FOIA disputes and aligns with the Secure DC no-redact-officer-likeness rule.

DC Office of Police Complaints FY25 metrics

The DC Office of Police Complaints released its Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Report on February 9, 2026. Of the OPC investigations conducted in FY25, 81% included BWC footage (up from 77% in FY24). The BWC non-compliance rate was 17% (down from 33% in FY24). The trend is improving inclusion and reducing non-compliance.

Federal agencies are not covered

USCP, USPP, USSS, the FBI, ATF, U.S. Marshals, DEA, FPS, and Pentagon Force Protection are not covered by section 5-116.33. Federal agencies operating in the District have their own body-camera policies (DOJ Order 2020-002 for DOJ components; the DHS body-worn camera policy for DHS components). A civilian who interacts with a federal officer in the District and wishes to obtain that officer's body-camera footage must use the federal Freedom of Information Act process for the relevant agency, not D.C. FOIA.

Recording the police in the District: the D.C. Circuit's unsettled posture

Whether a civilian has a clearly established First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers performing duties in public is settled in eight of the eleven numbered federal circuits. It is not settled in the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has no published civilian record-the-police opinion clearly establishing the right.

The leading published D.C. Cir. 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). Plaintiff Gordon Price, an independent filmmaker, was charged with filming on National Park Service land without a permit. The panel was Judge Ginsburg (author), joined by Judge Henderson (concurring), with Judge Tatel dissenting. The court reversed the District Court and held that the NPS's commercial-filmmaking permit-and-fee requirements are subject only to a "reasonableness" standard rather than the heightened scrutiny applicable to speech in a public forum. The act of filming on government-controlled property is, on the panel majority's analysis, conduct subject to reasonable government regulation, even where the resulting film may itself receive full First Amendment protection.

Judge Tatel dissented, warning that the majority improperly "disaggregate[d] speech creation and dissemination, thus degrading First Amendment protection for filming, photography, and other activities essential to free expression in today's world." The Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2023.

Two doctrinal caveats are important. First, Price v. Garland addressed commercial filmmaking permits on federal parkland, not a civilian's First Amendment right to record on-duty police. The case does not directly hold that civilians lack a right to record police. It does, however, supply restrictive analytic gravity: a future panel asked to recognize the right would be operating against a published D.C. Cir. precedent that applies only reasonableness review to filming on government property.

Second, because the D.C. Cir. has no direct holding on civilian recording of police, plaintiffs must rely on persuasive sister-circuit authority. Every federal circuit to have squarely addressed the question, in published opinion, has recognized a civilian First Amendment right to record on-duty police in public:

Circuit	Case	Year
1st Cir.	Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78	2011
3d Cir.	Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353	2017
4th Cir.	Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dept., 59 F.4th 674	2023
5th Cir.	Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678	2017
7th Cir.	ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583	2012
9th Cir.	Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436; Askins v. DHS, 899 F.3d 1035	1995; 2018
10th Cir.	Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282	2022
11th Cir.	Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332	2000

None of these binds the D.C. Cir. They are persuasive only. Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020), extends protection to secret recording of on-duty police in public and is useful persuasive authority for the surreptitious-recording wrinkle in the District's federal-overlay environment.

Civilians suing federal officers in the District (FBI, USCP, USPP, USSS, ATF, U.S. Marshals, DEA, FPS, Pentagon Force Protection) face an additional doctrinal hurdle on top of the unsettled D.C. Cir. posture: Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793 (2022), substantially constrains the availability of Bivens damages claims against federal officers for constitutional violations. The combination means that a civilian First Amendment recording claim against a federal officer in the District faces (1) Bivens-availability constraints under Egbert and (2) qualified immunity in the absence of clearly established D.C. Cir. precedent.

The practical takeaway: in the District, the First Amendment right to record on-duty police in public is the better-supported reading of doctrine, but it is not clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes at the circuit level. MPD General Order GO-SPT-302.13 internally acknowledges civilian recording of police, which provides some operational support at the agency level. For coverage of an MPD encounter on a District public street, civilians should expect that they may record, that an officer ordering them to stop or delete footage is acting outside the General Order, and that civil rights remedies are available where exposure to qualified immunity can be overcome.

Hidden cameras and voyeurism under D.C. Code section 22-3531

D.C. Code section 22-3531 is the District's voyeurism statute and the primary visual-privacy law for hidden cameras, nanny cams, landlord cameras, and intimate-area recording. The statute has a three-prong structure plus a distribution felony at subsection (f)(2).

Subsection (b) prohibits occupying a hidden observation post, or installing or maintaining a peephole, mirror, or any electronic device, for the purpose of secretly or surreptitiously observing an individual who is (1) using a bathroom or rest room, (2) totally or partially undressed or changing clothes, or (3) engaging in sexual activity.

Subsection (c) prohibits electronic recording, without the express and informed consent of the individual being recorded, of an individual engaged in any of the same three enumerated activities. This is the hidden-camera prong most often litigated.

Subsection (d) prohibits intentional capture of a "private area" image, under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without the individual's express and informed consent. "Private area" is narrowly defined as the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, anus, or buttocks of a person, or the female breast below the top of the areola.

Violations of subsections (b), (c), and (d) are Class A misdemeanors under subsection (f)(1): up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,500 under section 22-3571.01(b)(5). The distribution felony at subsection (f)(2) is the most consequential prong for hidden-camera prosecutions and is often missed by competitors: any person who, having obtained an image or recording in violation of subsections (b), (c), or (d), publishes, sells, transfers, or distributes that image or recording, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $12,500 under section 22-3571.01(b)(4).

Practical applications:

• Nanny cams and home cameras: Video-only cameras in a District home are generally lawful when the homeowner is the recorder and the camera does not capture activity in any of the enumerated private contexts. Audio-capable cameras add a layer because D.C. Code section 23-542 wiretap consent rules apply to the audio track.
• Ring doorbells and other smart cameras: Outward-facing cameras capturing public sidewalks and porches are generally lawful for video. Audio capture is governed by section 23-542; a homeowner who is not a party to a visitor-to-visitor conversation on the porch is technically not relying on the one-party defense.
• Landlord cameras: A District landlord may not install cameras in tenant private areas (bathrooms, bedrooms, dressing areas) without express written consent. Common-area cameras (lobbies, hallways, laundry rooms) are generally permissible with notice.
• Workplace cameras in restrooms or changing areas: Always prohibited under section 22-3531.

If you record someone's likeness for a business or commercial purpose, you should obtain proper consent via a photo or video consent form.

Nonconsensual intimate images under D.C. Code sections 22-3052 and 22-3053

The District's criminal scheme for nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII) is built on three interlocking statutes plus an affirmative public-interest defense and, since March 2025, a separate civil remedy.

The disclose-versus-publish distinction

D.C. Code section 22-3052 (knowing disclosure) and D.C. Code section 22-3053 (knowing publication) form the two-tier criminal NCII regime. The distinction between them is the verb, not a recipient count. Section 22-3052 reaches knowing "disclosure," a private or limited-circle communication, and is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000 under section 22-3571.01(b)(4). Section 22-3053 reaches knowing "publication," a broader dissemination such as posting on the internet or social media, and is a felony punishable by up to 3 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $12,500 under section 22-3571.01(b)(6).

Both statutes require the same three additional elements: (1) the depicted person did not consent to the disclosure or publication; (2) the defendant knew or consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person depicted did not consent; and (3) intent to harm the depicted person or to receive financial gain.

Neither statute contains a recipient-count threshold. Older references to "5 or fewer" recipients for section 22-3052 versus "6 or more" recipients or "internet" for section 22-3053 do not appear in the statutory text and should not be relied on. The line between disclosure and publication is contextual: a private DM to one person is disclosure; a Twitter post is publication.

D.C. Code section 22-3054 separately reaches downstream republishers as a misdemeanor (up to 180 days, $1,000). D.C. Code section 22-3056 provides an affirmative public-interest defense (reporting of unlawful conduct, lawful and common practices of law enforcement, legal proceedings) to sections 22-3052, 22-3053, and 22-3054.

D.C. Law 25-268 UCRUDII civil remedy (effective March 7, 2025)

D.C. Law 25-268 (the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act of 2024), originating bill B25-0484, was signed by Mayor Bowser on December 19, 2024 (Act 25-657) and became effective March 7, 2025 after the 30-day congressional review period. The Act created D.C. Code Title 7 Chapter 21D (sections 7-2161 through 7-2169).

Section 7-2162 creates a civil cause of action: a depicted individual who is identifiable may sue a defendant who intentionally disclosed, or threatened to disclose, a private intimate image without consent, knowing or with reckless disregard.

Remedies live at D.C. Code section 7-2165: economic and noneconomic damages or statutory damages not to exceed $10,000 per defendant; an amount equal to any monetary gain made by the defendant; punitive damages; reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and injunctive relief. Plaintiff-privacy protections are available so that a plaintiff need not disclose her identity in public filings beyond what is necessary to litigate.

The statute of limitations sits at a separate section: D.C. Code section 7-2166 provides 4 years from discovery of the unauthorized disclosure or from the date of a threat, tolled for minor depicted individuals until the depicted individual reaches age 18. Do not conflate sections 7-2165 (remedies) and 7-2166 (SoL); they are distinct.

The deepfake definitional gap

The "intimate image" definition at D.C. Code section 7-2161(7) is centered on "a photograph, film, video recording, or other similar medium." The phrase does not expressly cover AI-generated deepfakes or synthetic intimate imagery. Whether the catch-all phrase "or other similar medium" reaches AI-generated content is litigation-untested. As of May 14, 2026, no District court has construed section 7-2161(7) to extend to deepfake imagery.

Two developments are closing this gap. First, pending B26-0524 (the Distribution of False Sexual Imagery Prohibition Amendment Act of 2025) was introduced in the D.C. Council on December 1, 2025. Notice of Intent to Act was published in the D.C. Register on December 5, 2025. The bill would create a new misdemeanor offense and a new felony offense for nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit images, video, or audio of an individual created or altered through use of digital technology, including AI. As of May 14, 2026, B26-0524 is pending in committee; it has not been enacted; there is no Act number; no Mayor signature; no congressional review. If enacted, it would close the AI / deepfake definitional gap in D.C. Law 25-268 and in D.C. Code sections 22-3052 through 22-3054.

Second, the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) expressly reaches AI-generated digital forgeries, closing the gap at the federal level. See the recent developments section below for the platform-compliance timeline.

Cross-border calls: DC to Maryland and DC to Virginia

The District sits between Maryland (two-party consent) and Virginia (one-party consent), and District residents routinely make and receive cross-border calls. The consent rule that governs an interstate call depends on conflict-of-laws principles, which most courts resolve by applying the most-protective jurisdiction's law to interstate wire communications.

Origin	Destination	Origin rule	Destination rule	Practical rule
District of Columbia	Maryland	One-party (D.C. Code section 23-542(b)(3))	All-party (Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. section 10-402)	Obtain all-party consent
District of Columbia	Virginia	One-party	One-party (Va. Code section 19.2-62)	One-party suffices
Maryland	District of Columbia	All-party	One-party	Obtain all-party consent
Virginia	District of Columbia	One-party	One-party	One-party suffices

For a DC-to-Maryland call, the safer course is to obtain all-party consent. Maryland is one of the country's strictest two-party jurisdictions, with private-wire-and-oral-communication interception construed under Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. section 10-402 to require consent of every party. For a DC-to-Virginia call, both jurisdictions allow one-party recording, so the conflict does not arise. The federal conflict-of-laws principle, often called the most-protective-state rule, has been applied by federal courts in lines descending from Heggy v. Heggy (10th Cir. 1991, persuasive) and the California Supreme Court's analysis in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (Cal. 2006, often cited federally) for cross-border calls.

Workplace recording in the District

The District has no state-statutory employer-notice obligation specifically for one-party audio recording in the workplace. The federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d) and the parallel D.C. Code section 23-542(b)(3) supply the criminal floor. A District employer who is a party to a workplace conversation may record under one-party consent; a District employer who is not a party to a workplace conversation (covertly placing a recorder in a break room, for example) cannot rely on the defense. Video recording of zones with a reasonable privacy expectation (restrooms, changing areas, lactation rooms) is restricted under section 22-3531 (voyeurism) regardless of who the recorder is.

The labor-relations layer is principally federal. The NLRB's controlling standard for workplace rules under Section 8(a)(1) is Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023). To defend a no-recording or no-photography handbook rule against a facial challenge, the General Counsel first shows the rule has a reasonable tendency to chill protected activity. If so, the rule is presumptively unlawful. The employer may rebut by showing (1) the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest and (2) the employer cannot advance that interest with a more narrowly tailored alternative. Stericycle replaced the Boeing categorical framework and remains controlling Board law as of May 14, 2026.

Two NLRB General Counsel memoranda affect the framing but do not change Stericycle:

• NLRB GC 25-05 (released February 14, 2025 by Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen) is a housekeeping rescission of multiple Biden-era General Counsel memoranda to manage the agency's backlog. It addresses enforcement-priority rescissions, not Board-law overruling. GC 25-05 does not name Stericycle or McLaren Macomb and does not purport to overrule them. Only the Board (in a case decision) can overrule Stericycle. GC 25-05 is not a return to the Boeing categorical work-rule framework.
• NLRB GC 25-07 (released June 25, 2025 by ACG Cowen) declares surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation of NLRA Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3) (duty to bargain in good faith). The memo builds on Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770 (1978). GC 25-07 is narrow: it applies only to formal collective-bargaining sessions, not to general workplace recording. It does not clarify or modify Stericycle's work-rule framework.

District unionized workplaces (UNITE HERE Local 25 hotel and hospitality contracts; AFSCME Council 20; SEIU 32BJ commercial cleaning; Teamsters local contracts; WMATA / ATU Local 689) are subject to GC 25-07 during formal contract negotiations.

Federal-sector FLRA overlay

Federal-sector employees in the District (the largest single workforce sector in the city) are not covered by the NLRA. They are covered by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. chapter 71, administered by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. FLRA has its own body of decisions on workplace recording, surveillance, and bargaining-table conduct, generally tracking NLRA principles but with statutory differences. Stericycle does not apply to most federal workforces; FLRA precedent governs.

For a deeper dive on workplace audio recording across jurisdictions, see [Can an employer record conversations without consent?](/can-an-employer-record-conversations-without-consent/).

Recent and pending DC recording-law developments (2024 to 2026)

The District does not yet have a stand-alone deepfake criminal statute. The combination of D.C. Law 25-268 (civil remedy with intimate-image definition that does not expressly cover AI deepfakes), B26-0524 (pending criminal coverage of digitally created or altered content), and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (covering AI-generated digital forgeries and going live for platform takedown duties on May 19, 2026, five days from the date this article was last verified) is the current state of the District's NCII / deepfake regime.

Mayor's Order 2024-028 (DC AI Values, issued February 2024) provides governance background for District government use of AI but does not regulate citizen recording.

Frequently asked questions

District of Columbia Recording Laws by Topic

Each of the 12 pages below covers a specific District of Columbia recording-law context in greater depth than this hub can. Use them to drill into the rule that applies to your situation.

• District of Columbia Audio Recording Laws: Complete Legal Guide
• [DC Dashcam Laws: Recording Rules, Windshield Mounting, and Legal Limits (2026)](/united-states-recording-laws/one-party-consent-states/district-columbia-recording-laws/dashcam/)
• DC Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy Rights, and Disputes (2026)
• DC Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and One-Party Consent (2026)
• District of Columbia Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Interstate Calls
• District of Columbia Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits
• District of Columbia Laws on Recording in Public: Complete Legal Guide
• DC School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026)
• District of Columbia Security Camera Laws: Installation Rules and Privacy Limits
• District of Columbia Video Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
• District of Columbia Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Camera Penalties and Privacy Rights
• District of Columbia Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights

Related articles

• United States recording laws (parent hub: federal overlay and 50-state map)
• One-party consent states (sibling hub: list of one-party jurisdictions)
• Two-party / all-party consent states (counter hub: stricter regimes)
• Maryland recording laws (cross-border calling: two-party)
• Virginia recording laws (cross-border calling: one-party)
• [Can an employer record conversations without consent?](/can-an-employer-record-conversations-without-consent/)
• [Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent?](/is-it-illegal-to-video-record-someone-without-their-consent/)
• DMCA Takedown Notice Generator (NCII and deepfake removal path)

General information disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about recording laws in the District of Columbia under the D.C. Code, the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and federal regulations governing recording on federal land in the District. The information was last verified on May 14, 2026. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for advice from a lawyer licensed in the District of Columbia. For application of the rules described here to a specific factual situation, including any criminal charge, civil claim, FOIA dispute, or platform-takedown matter, consult a District of Columbia Bar member.