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

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 18 U.S.C. section 2511(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.

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 Class A misdemeanor under subsection (f)(1): up to 1 year imprisonment and a $2,500 fine. 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.

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).

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 fall under U.S. Capitol Police regulations at 2 U.S.C. sections 1961 through 1969: hand-held recording is generally permitted; tripods outside designated press areas require a USCP permit; video recording on the East and West Front steps is prohibited; commercial equipment is restricted during joint sessions and presidential inaugurations. The National Mall and federal monuments fall under 36 CFR sections 5.5 and 7.96 (NPS National Capital Region); after Price v. Barr, 514 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D.D.C. 2021), low-impact filming by groups of five or fewer using hand-held equipment is generally permit-free. GSA federal buildings fall under 41 CFR Part 102-74 and Federal Protective Service enforcement. The Pentagon falls under 32 CFR section 234.15. 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 for disclosures that serve a lawful public interest, such as reporting on a matter of public concern, where the person made a reasonable effort to minimize harm to the depicted individual. 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.

Recent legal developments

• 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

• District of Columbia Audio Recording Laws: Complete Legal Guide
• District of Columbia Video Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
• DC Dashcam Laws: Recording Rules, Windshield Mounting, and Legal Limits (2026)

By place or relationship

• 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
• District of Columbia Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
• DC Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy Rights, and Disputes (2026)
• DC School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026)
• DC Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and One-Party Consent (2026)
• District of Columbia Security Camera Laws: Installation Rules and Privacy Limits
• District of Columbia Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Camera Penalties and Privacy Rights

More District of Columbia laws

• Maryland recording laws (cross-border calls: two-party)
• Virginia recording laws (cross-border calls: one-party)
• United States recording laws (parent hub: federal overlay and 50-state map)
• One-party consent states (sibling hub)
• Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent?

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.