District of Columbia Video Recording Laws: What You Need to Know

In the District of Columbia, video-only recording is legal wherever subjects lack a reasonable expectation of privacy. When a recording also captures audio, D.C. Code Section 23-542 requires one-party consent. D.C. Code Section 22-3531 makes it a crime to record someone who is using a bathroom, undressing, or engaged in sexual activity without their express and informed consent where they reasonably expect privacy, whether or not the camera is hidden.

The District of Columbia does not have a standalone video recording statute that governs all forms of video capture. Instead, D.C. video recording law is shaped by several overlapping statutes, constitutional protections, and property-based rules. Whether your video recording is legal depends on where you are filming, whether audio is being captured, and whether the subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Understanding these rules is particularly important in D.C. because the city is home to federal government buildings, international organizations, national monuments, and areas with heightened security. This guide covers every major scenario you may encounter when recording video in the nation's capital.

Video Recording in Public Spaces

General Rule: Public Filming Is Legal

D.C. does not prohibit video recording in public spaces. You are free to record video on public streets, sidewalks, parks, plazas, and other areas accessible to the general public. Recording in public places is protected First Amendment activity, though the D.C. Circuit reviews rules limiting filming on government property only for reasonableness, even in a public forum (Price v. Garland, 2022), and it has not decided whether recording police is protected.

This means you can legally:

• Film on public streets and sidewalks throughout D.C.
• Record at the National Mall, Lincoln Memorial, and other national monuments
• Capture video of public protests, demonstrations, and rallies
• Film street performers, public events, and parades
• Record from any location where you have a legal right to be

Audio Capture Changes the Rules

While video-only recording in public is broadly permitted, adding audio to your recording introduces D.C. Code Section 23-542 into the analysis. If your video recording captures private conversations, the one-party consent rule applies.

In practice, most video recordings in public spaces will capture ambient sound and conversations that are not "oral communications" under the statute, because people speaking in busy public areas generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, if you intentionally record a quiet private conversation between two people using a directional microphone or other targeted audio equipment, you could violate the wiretap statute. Section 23-542 carries criminal penalties of up to 5 years in prison and a $12,500 fine (under D.C. Code Section 22-3571.01), and the victim can pursue civil damages under D.C. Code Section 23-554(a) for the greater of actual damages, $100 per day, or $1,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.

National Mall and Federal Property

The National Mall and surrounding areas are managed by the National Park Service (NPS). Since January 2025, the EXPLORE Act (Pub. L. 118-234, codified at 54 U.S.C. 100905) has treated all filming, still photography, and audio recording on NPS land the same, whether it is commercial, non-commercial, content creation, or news gathering, according to the NPS.

Key rules for the National Mall area include:

• No permit or fee is generally needed for a shoot involving eight or fewer people that stays in areas open to the public, uses hand-carried equipment only, does not need exclusive use of a site, does not harm park resources or other visitors, and is not likely to add administrative costs for the NPS
• Larger shoots, or ones that need sets, closures, or heavy equipment, need an NPS permit
• Flying a drone over the Mall is prohibited without specific FAA authorization, because all of D.C. lies inside the inner ring of the permanent Washington, D.C. Special Flight Rules Area

Video Recording on Private Property

Property Owner Rules

On private property, the property owner or occupant sets the rules for recording. Businesses, offices, and private residences can prohibit or restrict video recording on their premises. Common examples include:

• Retail stores posting "no photography" signs
• Office buildings requiring visitor badges and prohibiting cameras in certain areas
• Restaurants and bars asking patrons not to film other guests
• Private event venues restricting recording

If you are asked to stop recording on private property and refuse, you may be asked to leave. Remaining after being told to leave constitutes trespass under D.C. law.

Recording in Your Own Home

You can generally install video cameras in your own home. However, there are important limitations:

• Do not place cameras where they would watch or record guests using a bathroom, undressing, or engaged in sexual activity; recording them without their express and informed consent can be a crime under D.C. Code Section 22-3531, and you should not count on the law's exemption for security monitoring in your own home to cover that use
• You cannot record intimate or sexual activity without the consent of all participants
• If your cameras capture audio, one-party consent rules apply to any conversations recorded

Shared Spaces and Multi-Unit Buildings

In apartment buildings, condominiums, and other multi-unit properties, video recording rules vary. Common areas (lobbies, hallways, parking garages) may be monitored by building management with cameras. Individual tenants can generally install cameras covering their own unit entrances but should avoid pointing cameras into neighboring units or shared private spaces.

Voyeurism: D.C. Code Section 22-3531

What Constitutes Voyeurism in D.C.?

D.C. Code Section 22-3531 is keyed to what the person is doing, not to a particular room. It has three prongs:

• Subsection (b): occupying a hidden observation post, or installing a peephole, mirror, or electronic device, for the purpose of secretly watching someone who is using a bathroom, undressing or changing, or engaged in sexual activity
• Subsection (c): electronically recording a person in any of those situations without their express and informed consent, where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy; the camera does not have to be hidden
• Subsection (d): intentionally capturing an image of a person's private areas, under circumstances where they reasonably expect privacy, without their express and informed consent

The law exempts lawful law enforcement surveillance, security monitoring in your own home, security monitoring in buildings with prominently posted surveillance signs, and recording a medical procedure on a patient unable to consent.

Penalties for Voyeurism

Penalties under D.C. Code Section 22-3531(f):

• Watching or recording (subsections (b), (c), (d)): a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year and a fine of up to $2,500 (under D.C. Code Section 22-3571.01)
• Distributing the images: a felony punishable by up to 5 years and a fine of up to $12,500, for anyone who distributes images they know or have reason to know were taken in violation of the statute
• Sex offender registration: voyeurism is not on the list of registration offenses in D.C. Code Section 22-4001, so registration applies only if a defendant agrees to it in a plea agreement

"Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" Standard

The voyeurism statute hinges on whether the victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Courts evaluate this standard by considering the totality of the circumstances, including:

• The physical location (bathrooms, fitting rooms, and bedrooms carry strong privacy expectations)
• Whether the area was enclosed or shielded from public view
• Whether the victim took steps to maintain privacy (closing a door, drawing curtains)
• Whether the recording was done secretly or with the subject's knowledge

Public areas generally do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the voyeurism statute. However, subsection (d) can reach an image of someone's private areas taken in an otherwise public place, such as an upskirt photo, if the person reasonably expects privacy under the circumstances.

Nonconsensual Pornography: D.C. Code Section 22-3052

The "Revenge Porn" Law

The District of Columbia enacted the Nonconsensual Pornography Prevention Act to address the distribution of intimate images without the depicted person's consent. Under D.C. Code Section 22-3052, it is illegal to knowingly disclose one or more sexual images of another person when:

• The person depicted did not consent to the disclosure
• The person disclosing the image knew or consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the depicted person did not consent
• The person disclosed the image with the intent to harm the depicted person or to receive financial gain

Statutory Structure: Disclose vs. Publish

Chapter 30A of Title 22 (D.C. Law 20-275, effective May 7, 2015) draws the line by how many people see the image. Under D.C. Code Section 22-3051, to "disclose" means to transfer or exhibit to 5 or fewer people, and to "publish" means to transfer or exhibit to 6 or more people or to upload to the internet (a text message is not the internet):

• D.C. Code Section 22-3052 (unlawful disclosure): a misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days.
• D.C. Code Section 22-3053 (first-degree unlawful publication): a felony punishable by up to 3 years.
• D.C. Code Section 22-3054 (second-degree unlawful publication): republishing an image obtained from a third party, knowing or consciously disregarding the risk that it came from a disclosure made to harm the person or for money; a misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days.
• D.C. Code Section 22-3056 provides an affirmative defense for disclosures in the public interest, such as reporting unlawful conduct or use in legal proceedings.

Civil Remedies: UCRUDIIA

Victims can pursue civil remedies under the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act of 2024 (D.C. Law 25-268, effective March 7, 2025, codified at Title 7 Chapter 21D), which provides actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. UCRUDIIA's remedies provision is D.C. Code Section 7-2165 and caps statutory damages at $10,000.

UCRUDIIA's "intimate image" definition at Section 7-2161(7) does not expressly cover AI deepfake imagery as of the effective date, and that gap has not been tested in D.C. litigation. Bill 26-0524 (the Distribution of False Sexual Imagery Prohibition Amendment Act of 2025), introduced December 1, 2025, would add a new misdemeanor and a new felony to D.C.'s criminal law for distributing sexual images created or altered with digital technology, including AI deepfakes; it would not change the civil law. As of November 2026 it was pending before the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, with a public hearing set for November 9, 2026. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025; 48-hour platform takedown effective May 19, 2026) overlays on top of D.C. law for content hosted on covered platforms.

Exemptions

The nonconsensual pornography statute contains exclusions for:

• Constitutionally protected activity
• Situations where the depicted person voluntarily exposed themselves in a public or commercial setting
• Interactive computer services (platforms) that host user-generated content, though they may still face liability under other laws

Recording in Federal Buildings

General Rules

D.C. is home to hundreds of federal buildings, each with its own security protocols. The Federal Protective Service (FPS), part of the Department of Homeland Security, manages security for many federal facilities.

General guidelines for recording in and around federal buildings:

• Outside: Recording the exterior of federal buildings from public sidewalks and streets is generally legal. Federal property managed by GSA falls under 41 CFR Section 102-74.420
• Inside lobbies and public areas: Rules vary by building. Many allow photography in public-facing lobbies but restrict recording in offices and secure areas
• Courthouses: Recording inside federal courthouses (including the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) is prohibited
• Congress: The U.S. Capitol building and congressional office buildings have specific recording rules enforced by the U.S. Capitol Police

Specific Facility Restrictions

Some federal facilities have unique recording rules:

• The White House: No public tours currently permit recording in certain areas. Rules change periodically.
• The Pentagon (in Arlington, Virginia, just outside D.C.): Photography and recording on the Pentagon Reservation are restricted under 32 CFR Section 234.15, the Pentagon Force Protection Agency's photographic regulations
• Intelligence agency buildings: Recording near CIA, NSA, and other intelligence facilities may be restricted by specific federal regulations
• Smithsonian museums: Personal photography is generally permitted in most Smithsonian museums, though some special exhibitions may restrict it

Video Recording and the First Amendment in D.C.

Constitutional Protections

Eight federal appeals courts (the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits) have held that the First Amendment protects recording police officers doing their jobs in public, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner limits, and the Fourth Circuit has held that livestreaming a police traffic stop is protected speech. The D.C. Circuit has not decided the question, so in D.C. the law on recording police remains unsettled.

The closest D.C. Circuit authority is Price v. Garland, No. 21-5073 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 23, 2022), a 2-1 decision (Judge Ginsburg for the court, Judge Henderson concurring, Judge Tatel dissenting) that upheld the then-current National Park Service permit-and-fee rules for commercial filming under a reasonableness test. Price did not involve recording police. It described the other circuits' police-recording cases as holding that a blanket ban on recording public officials doing their jobs on public property is unreasonable, as long as the recording does not interfere with their duties.

Where courts have recognized the right, it has covered:

• Recording government officials performing their public duties
• Filming police officers during traffic stops, arrests, and other encounters
• Documenting public protests and demonstrations
• Capturing newsworthy events as they unfold

Limitations on First Amendment Recording Rights

The right to record is not unlimited. You may face legal consequences if you:

• Trespass on private or restricted property to obtain footage
• Physically interfere with law enforcement operations
• Obstruct traffic or block emergency vehicles while filming
• Violate court orders or lawful restrictions on recording
• Use recording as a tool for harassment or stalking

Video Recording by Government Entities in D.C.

Metropolitan Police Department Body Cameras

The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) operates a body-worn camera program governed by D.C. Code Section 5-116.33. Under this program:

• MPD officers are required to wear and activate body cameras during certain law enforcement activities
• Body camera footage is subject to public disclosure rules with exemptions for privacy, ongoing investigations, and other sensitive situations
• Citizens can request body camera footage related to their own interactions with police through a formal request process

Public Surveillance Cameras

D.C. operates an extensive network of public surveillance cameras, particularly around government buildings, transit stations, and high-traffic areas. The use of these cameras is subject to D.C. Code Section 7-2231.10 and related regulations that establish guidelines for camera placement, data retention, and access.

Using Video Recordings as Evidence

Admissibility in D.C. Courts

Video recordings are generally admissible as evidence in D.C. courts if they meet standard evidentiary requirements:

• Authentication: The offering party must demonstrate the video accurately represents what it purports to show
• Relevance: The video must relate to a fact at issue in the case
• Not unduly prejudicial: The court may exclude video if its prejudicial impact substantially outweighs its probative value
• Legal acquisition: Videos obtained through illegal means (such as voyeurism) may be excluded

Chain of Custody

Maintaining a clear chain of custody strengthens the admissibility of video evidence. Best practices include:

• Preserving the original file without editing
• Recording metadata (date, time, device used, location)
• Storing the video securely with restricted access
• Documenting everyone who has handled or viewed the recording

Explore More D.C. Recording Laws

Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording

Back to District of Columbia Recording Laws

More District of Columbia Recording Topics

• District of Columbia Biometric Privacy Laws
• Surveillance Camera Laws

More District of Columbia Laws

• District of Columbia Dashcam Laws
• District of Columbia Employee Monitoring Laws
• District of Columbia Police Bodycam Laws
• District of Columbia Smart Glasses Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it legal to record video in public places in Washington, D.C.?

Yes. D.C. does not prohibit video recording in public places. You can film on public streets, sidewalks, parks, the National Mall, and other publicly accessible areas. Recording in public places is protected First Amendment activity, although the D.C. Circuit reviews rules limiting filming on government property only for reasonableness and has not decided whether recording police is protected.

Do I need permission to record video on the National Mall?

Usually not. Since the 2025 EXPLORE Act (54 U.S.C. 100905), filming and photography by eight or fewer people with hand-carried gear in areas open to the public generally needs no National Park Service permit or fee, whether or not it is commercial. Larger or equipment-heavy shoots need a permit, and flying a drone over the Mall is prohibited without specific FAA authorization.

What is the penalty for voyeurism in D.C.?

Watching or recording someone in violation of D.C. Code Section 22-3531 is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Distributing the images is a felony punishable by up to 5 years and a $12,500 fine. Voyeurism is not a listed sex offender registration offense in D.C., so registration applies only if a defendant agrees to it in a plea agreement.

Can I record video inside federal buildings in Washington, D.C.?

Rules vary by building. Recording inside federal courthouses is prohibited. Many federal buildings allow recording in public lobbies but restrict it in offices and secure areas. Always check posted signs and follow security personnel instructions.

Is sharing intimate videos without consent illegal in D.C.?

Yes, when it is done with intent to harm the person shown or for financial gain. Sharing a sexual image with 5 or fewer people without consent is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days under D.C. Code Section 22-3052. Sharing it with 6 or more people, or posting it online, is a felony punishable by up to 3 years under Section 22-3053. Separately, D.C.'s civil intimate-image law (D.C. Law 25-268, effective March 7, 2025) lets victims sue, with statutory damages of up to $10,000 under D.C. Code Section 7-2165.