D.C. Smart Glasses Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide

Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Washington, D.C., but whether you can legally record with them depends on a critical distinction between audio and video. Video in public is generally lawful. Audio of private conversations is governed by D.C.'s one-party consent wiretap statute, D.C. Code § 23-542, which means a participant in the conversation can record it without notifying the other party.

Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Washington, D.C.?

Yes. No D.C. statute restricts purchasing, owning, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is sold freely in the District and its possession raises no legal issue under D.C. or federal law.

The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video, and it turns on three variables: what was recorded, where, and whether you were a participant in any conversation captured.

Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces

Public spaces

Recording video in a public space in Washington, D.C. (a street, sidewalk, the National Mall, a Metro station concourse, or any other location generally open to the public) is lawful under both D.C. and federal law. Persons in public have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510) limits the definition of an "oral communication" to one uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception; silent video of people in public does not trigger it. D.C. law follows the same principle.

A smart glasses wearer walking through Georgetown, recording a street scene on the Capitol steps, or capturing footage of a public event does not create legal exposure from video capture alone.

Semi-public and private spaces

The analysis changes in semi-public or private spaces. A private residence, hotel room, medical office, or closed conference room carries a strong expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible to others, such as a restaurant table during a one-on-one conversation, a workplace break room, or a quiet corner of a library, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of spoken words exchanged there.

Under Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the constitutional test requires both a subjective expectation of privacy and one that society recognizes as objectively reasonable. D.C. courts apply this framework when evaluating whether a location or conversation is "private" within the meaning of the wiretap statute.

Federal Property: A D.C.-Specific Consideration

Washington, D.C. contains an unusually high concentration of federal government property: the Capitol grounds, federal office buildings, national monuments, parks administered by the National Park Service, and the Smithsonian Institution. Recording video on federal property in public-access areas is generally permitted under the same First Amendment principles that apply on public streets. However, some federal buildings and secured facilities restrict photography and recording by posted policy or regulation. The general lawfulness of public video recording does not override access restrictions set by specific federal agencies on their premises.

Recording Audio and D.C.'s One-Party Consent Rule

The statute

D.C. Code § 23-542 is the District's wiretap and surveillance law. It mirrors the structure of the federal Wiretap Act and prohibits any person from willfully intercepting, endeavoring to intercept, or procuring another to intercept any wire or oral communication.

The critical provision for smart glasses users is § 23-542(b)(3), which carves out a consent exception for non-law-enforcement persons:

It is not unlawful 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 the interception, provided the interception is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

This is the one-party consent rule. If you are wearing smart glasses and you are a participant in the conversation being recorded (meaning you are actively exchanging words with the other person), you are a party to the communication and may record it without notifying or obtaining consent from other participants. One party's consent (your own) is sufficient.

What the one-party rule does NOT cover

The one-party exception is specific: it protects participants. It does not cover:

• Capturing the private conversation of two or more other people nearby who are not speaking to you.
• Secretly recording inside a room where a meeting is taking place and you have no speaking role.
• Using the glasses to intercept communications transmitted over a wire or electronic channel where you are not a participant.

Recording the "oral communication" of others (in which you are not a party) without at least one of those parties consenting is a violation of § 23-542. Oral communication is defined in D.C. Code § 23-541 as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation." The private words of two colleagues in a break room qualify. A loud street argument between strangers may not, if no reasonable expectation against interception exists.

Practical application for smart glasses

For a smart glasses wearer in Washington, D.C., the one-party consent rule means:

• Recording a conversation you are having (at a business meeting, a social gathering, or a street encounter) is lawful. You are a party. No disclosure is required under D.C. law.
• Recording your own video content in a public space without engaging in any private conversation raises no wiretap issue at all.
• Recording a conversation between two other people that you are not part of is not protected by the participant exception. At least one of those parties must consent.

For more on D.C.'s consent framework, see the District of Columbia Recording Laws page.

Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Unlawful Surveillance

Regardless of consent rules, D.C. law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct.

D.C. Code § 22-3531 criminalizes three categories of conduct:

1. Operating a hidden observation post or installing devices for the purpose of secretly observing persons in private settings such as bathrooms, during undressing, or during sexual activity.
2. Recording individuals without their express and informed consent while they are using bathrooms or restrooms, are totally or partially undressed or changing clothes, or are engaged in sexual activity.
3. Intentionally capturing images of a person's "private area" (defined as exposed or undergarment-clad genitalia, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female breasts below the areola) when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The locations where § 22-3531 applies most clearly are restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, fitting rooms, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical examination rooms. The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception. The hidden nature of the recording is, in fact, a factor that strengthens the case for the "surreptitious" element of the offense.

The statute explicitly excludes lawful law enforcement activity, security monitoring of one's own premises, spaces under surveillance with prominent posted notice, and medical recordings where consent cannot be obtained. None of those exceptions apply to ordinary consumer smart glasses use.

The federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. § 1801) adds a parallel floor for federal property: it prohibits recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Given the high concentration of federal land in Washington, D.C., this provision carries particular practical weight in the District.

The rule is absolute: no consent from any other party, and no location in the District, can legalize using smart glasses to record someone's intimate areas in a space where they reasonably expect privacy from observation.

Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy

Washington, D.C. does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), or Washington State's biometric identifier law (RCW Chapter 19.375).

Under D.C. law alone, using a smart glasses facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not trigger a standalone biometric statute the way it would in Illinois (where BIPA imposes up to $5,000 per person in statutory damages for capturing face geometry without written consent) or in Texas, where CUBI allows civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation for commercial capture without consent.

D.C. residents and visitors are not without recourse, however. The federal Wiretap Act, common-law privacy torts, and general constitutional principles still apply. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, intentionally intruding upon the solitude or seclusion of another in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability regardless of whether a state or local biometric statute applies. The act of covert recording itself can create that liability without any requirement that footage be published or shared.

The biometric risk is most acute through third-party software integrations. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses provide a camera but do not natively run facial recognition. The legal exposure arises when a user pairs the glasses with a third-party facial recognition application to identify strangers. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a reverse facial-recognition search engine to identify strangers in real time and retrieve home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes. That demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. D.C. users who replicate this type of integration face civil tort liability and, if the identified person resides in Illinois, Texas, or Washington State, potential exposure under those states' biometric statutes as well.

Because D.C. is also home to a high concentration of government officials, lobbyists, journalists, and federal employees, using smart glasses to identify and track individuals in the District raises particular civil liberties concerns and could, depending on intent and use, implicate federal statutes governing surveillance or harassment of federal officials.

Penalties Summary

D.C.'s recording and surveillance penalties are set by reference to D.C. Code § 22-3571.01's fine schedule, which scales fines to maximum imprisonment terms.

At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) independently imposes up to 5 years imprisonment for criminal violations and civil liability of at least $10,000 in statutory damages for each unlawful interception. D.C.'s wiretap chapter also authorizes civil remedies for aggrieved persons, including recovery of actual damages and other appropriate relief.

Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Washington, D.C.

Know you are in a one-party consent jurisdiction. If you are wearing smart glasses and you are a genuine participant in the conversation being recorded, D.C. Code § 23-542(b)(3) permits you to record without disclosure. You do not need to announce the recording. The key is that you must actually be a party to the conversation, not merely present in the same room.

Be aware of the federal property dimension. Washington, D.C. contains more federal property than any other jurisdiction in the country. Publicly accessible areas of federal buildings and monuments are generally treated like public spaces for recording purposes, but individual agencies may impose posting-based restrictions. Check posted signage before recording inside a federal building.

Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. D.C. law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearable devices, but deliberately obscuring the LED removes the one visible external signal that recording is occurring, which directly strengthens evidence of covert, non-consensual recording intent if a legal dispute arises.

Never record in private spaces. The prohibition under D.C. Code § 22-3531 on recording in restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and similar private spaces is absolute. Remove the glasses or stop recording before entering any location where people reasonably expect privacy from visual observation of their bodies. The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception, and the federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act applies simultaneously on federal property.

Disclose at the start of formal meetings. Even though D.C.'s one-party consent rule technically permits undisclosed recording by a participant, disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal meeting (an employment interview, business negotiation, legal consultation, or medical appointment) eliminates ambiguity and avoids civil liability for intrusion upon seclusion entirely.

Facial recognition adds risk. The District has no local biometric statute, but using smart glasses to identify strangers through facial recognition software exposes you to common-law tort liability and potentially to the biometric laws of other states where the identified person lives or works, particularly Illinois, Texas, and Washington State.

Driving caution. D.C.'s traffic laws include restrictions on the use of handheld electronic devices while operating a motor vehicle, but no D.C. regulation as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices. Navigation use is likely treated analogously to a mounted GPS. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media interaction, or video calls while driving creates the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic device distraction, and the legal status of wearable displays behind the wheel remains unsettled across most jurisdictions.

More District of Columbia Laws

• District of Columbia Drone Laws
• District of Columbia Recording Laws