District of Columbia Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Camera Penalties and Privacy Rights

Under D.C. Code Section 22-3531, the District of Columbia makes it a crime to secretly watch, or to record without express and informed consent, a person who is using a bathroom, undressing, or engaged in sexual activity where they reasonably expect privacy, and to capture images of a person's private areas without consent. Watching or recording is a misdemeanor carrying up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine; distributing the images is a felony carrying up to five years.

The District of Columbia takes voyeurism and hidden camera offenses seriously, treating them as violations of personal privacy that carry criminal penalties. D.C. law addresses these issues through two primary statutes: the voyeurism law under D.C. Code Section 22-3531 and the nonconsensual pornography law under D.C. Code Section 22-3052.

These laws protect individuals from being secretly watched or recorded in places where they expect privacy, and from having intimate images shared without their consent. Understanding both statutes is critical for D.C. residents, employers, landlords, and anyone who installs cameras or recording devices in the District.

D.C. Voyeurism Law: D.C. Code Section 22-3531

Elements of the Offense

D.C. Code Section 22-3531 defines voyeurism through a three-prong structure:

• Section 22-3531(b): occupying a hidden observation post, or installing or maintaining a peephole, mirror, or electronic device, for the purpose of secretly watching someone who is using a bathroom or restroom, totally or partially undressed or changing clothes, or engaging in sexual activity.
• Section 22-3531(c): electronically recording a person in any of those situations without their express and informed consent, where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This prong has no secrecy element: recording with a visible camera is still a crime.
• Section 22-3531(d): intentionally capturing an image of a person's private area (the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, anus, or buttocks, or the female breast below the top of the areola) without their express and informed consent, under circumstances in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Subsection (e) exempts lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence surveillance; security monitoring in one's own home; security monitoring in a building with prominently displayed signs saying the premises are under surveillance; and recording a medical procedure on a patient unable to consent.

A fourth prong, Section 22-3531(f)(2), makes it a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison to distribute or disseminate images or sounds the person knows or has reason to know were taken in violation of subsections (b), (c), or (d). This distribution-prong felony is materially more serious than the base misdemeanor and is the prosecution's most powerful tool when hidden-camera content is circulated.

The statute is designed to protect people from invasive surveillance in situations where they reasonably believe they are not being watched or recorded. The misdemeanor prongs focus on the act of observation or recording; the felony prong focuses on what the offender does with the captured image after the fact.

What Counts as a "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy"

The "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard is the cornerstone of the voyeurism statute. D.C. courts evaluate this by examining the totality of the circumstances surrounding the recording. Locations that carry a strong expectation of privacy include:

• Bathrooms and restrooms (public and private)
• Locker rooms and changing areas (gyms, pools, retail stores)
• Bedrooms (in homes, hotels, and other lodging)
• Shower facilities
• Medical examination rooms
• Dressing rooms (retail fitting rooms, backstage areas)

Locations that generally do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy include:

• Public streets and sidewalks
• Open parks and plazas
• Public transportation vehicles and stations
• Retail sales floors and restaurant dining areas
• Office common areas and lobbies

The analysis can be nuanced. For example, a person sitting in a public park generally has no expectation of privacy for their visible appearance. However, if someone uses a camera to photograph up that person's skirt or down their blouse, the voyeurism statute may apply because the victim has a reasonable expectation that the covered portions of their body are private.

Criminal Penalties for Voyeurism

The Section 22-3531 prongs carry different penalty levels:

Misdemeanor fines are governed by D.C. Code Section 22-3571.01; the felony distribution prong tracks the higher fine ceiling at the same statutory provision. D.C. Code Section 22-4001(8)'s list of registration offenses does not include Chapter 35A voyeurism, so registration does not automatically apply to a conviction under any of these prongs.

Sex Offender Registration

D.C. Code Section 22-4001(8), which defines "registration offense" under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), does not list Chapter 35A voyeurism (§ 22-3531) among its enumerated registration offenses. A standalone voyeurism conviction does not, by itself, require the convicted person to register with the Metropolitan Police Department.

The one exception is Section 22-4001(8)(H), which lets a defendant agree in a plea agreement to be subject to registration requirements even for an offense that is not otherwise on the list. Where registration does apply, requirements can include:

• Providing name, address, employment information, and photograph to MPD
• Updating registration information when any details change
• Periodic in-person verification of registration information
• Public listing on the sex offender registry

Absent a plea agreement invoking Section 22-4001(8)(H), the registration periods and tier classifications that apply to other SORA offenses do not apply to a voyeurism-only conviction.

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

What the Law Prohibits

The Nonconsensual Pornography Prevention Act makes it illegal to knowingly disclose one or more sexual images of another person when:

• The person depicted in the images did not consent to the disclosure
• The person who disclosed the images knew or consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the depicted person had not consented
• The person disclosed the image with the intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain

This law is commonly referred to as D.C.'s "revenge porn" statute. The harm-or-profit motive is an element prosecutors must prove. A civil lawsuit under D.C.'s intimate-image law (D.C. Code Section 7-2162) does not require proof of that motive.

Definitions

D.C. Code Section 22-3051 defines the key terms:

• Sexual image: a photograph, video, or other visual recording of an unclothed private area or of sexual conduct
• Disclose: to transfer or exhibit to 5 or fewer people
• Publish: to transfer or exhibit to 6 or more people, or to make available for viewing by uploading to the internet (a text message does not count as the internet)

The criminal chapter does not define consent. D.C.'s civil intimate-image law does: consent means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization (D.C. Code Section 7-2161), and agreeing to have an image taken is not, by itself, agreeing to its disclosure (D.C. Code Section 7-2162(c)).

Criminal Penalties

Chapter 30A of Title 22 (D.C. Law 20-275, effective May 7, 2015) draws its principal line by audience size:

• D.C. Code Section 22-3052 (unlawful disclosure): disclosing a sexual image to 5 or fewer people is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days.
• D.C. Code Section 22-3053 (first-degree unlawful publication): showing it to 6 or more people, or posting it online, is a felony punishable by up to 3 years.
• D.C. Code Section 22-3054 (second-degree unlawful publication): knowingly republishing a sexual image obtained from a third party, knowing or consciously disregarding the risk that it came from an earlier disclosure made to harm the person or for money, is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days.
• D.C. Code Section 22-3056 provides a public-interest defense for newsworthy disclosures.

The Office of Attorney General for the District of Columbia (OAG) prosecutes Chapter 30A misdemeanors, with the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (USAO-DC) handling any felony-track offense under D.C. Code Section 23-101.

Exclusions and Defenses to the Nonconsensual Pornography Law

D.C. Code Sections 22-3055 and 22-3056 set out the chapter's exclusions and defenses:

• Constitutionally protected activity: Section 22-3055 excludes constitutionally protected activity from the chapter entirely
• Voluntary public exposure: Section 22-3055 also excludes disclosures resulting from the depicted person's voluntary exposure in a public or commercial setting
• Interactive computer services: Section 22-3055 shields platforms that host user-generated content from liability for content posted by third parties, though other laws may still apply
• Public-interest affirmative defense: Section 22-3056 provides an affirmative defense, not a blanket exemption, when a disclosure or publication is made in the public interest, including reporting unlawful conduct, the lawful and common practices of law enforcement, or legal proceedings

Civil Remedies for Victims

Civil Action Under UCRUDIIA (D.C. Law 25-268)

The Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act of 2024 (D.C. Law 25-268, signed December 19, 2024 and effective March 7, 2025) gives victims a private right of action for unauthorized disclosure of intimate images, codified at Title 7 Chapter 21D of the D.C. Code (§§ 7-2161 to 7-2169). Note that D.C. Code Section 22-3055, sometimes cited for civil claims, is actually the criminal chapter's exclusions provision and creates no cause of action. Key provisions:

• Section 7-2161(7) defines "intimate image" for purposes of the Act. The statutory definition does not expressly cover AI-generated deepfake imagery as of the effective date, and that gap has not yet been tested in D.C. litigation.
• Section 7-2165 is the remedies provision. A prevailing plaintiff may recover the greater of actual damages (including emotional distress) or statutory damages of up to $10,000 per defendant, plus any profit the defendant made from the disclosure and punitive damages, and the court may award attorney fees and injunctive relief.
• Section 7-2166 sets the statute of limitations.

Pending Legislation: B26-0524

Bill 26-0524, the Distribution of False Sexual Imagery Prohibition Amendment Act of 2025, was introduced in the D.C. Council on December 1, 2025. It would add a new misdemeanor and a new felony to D.C.'s criminal law for distributing sexual images, video, or audio created or altered with digital technology, including AI deepfakes; it does not amend the civil intimate-image 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, and had not become law.

Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) was signed on May 19, 2025. Its 48-hour platform-takedown obligations took effect on May 19, 2026, and operate as an overlay on top of D.C.'s Chapter 30A and UCRUDIIA remedies for D.C. victims whose images appear on covered platforms.

D.C. Code Section 23-554: Wiretap Civil Remedies

If a hidden device also captured your conversations, the recording may be an illegal interception of oral communications under D.C. Code Section 23-542, and D.C. Code Section 23-554(a) lets you sue. This remedy reaches only audio: a silent video recording is not an "interception" under D.C. Code Section 23-541. Under Section 23-554(c), the District of Columbia is itself a "person" and may not claim governmental immunity, so a victim can sue D.C. (not just the individual government employee) when government conduct violates Section 23-542. The recoverable formula under § 23-554(a)(2) is:

• The greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or a $1,000 floor;
• Punitive damages;
• Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs.

A good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense for the recording party under § 23-554. Victims may pursue remedies under both Chapter 30A / UCRUDIIA and the wiretap statute when the same conduct violates each.

Hidden Cameras: Common Scenarios

Hidden Cameras in Rental Properties

Landlords and short-term rental hosts in D.C. should not install hidden cameras in areas where tenants or guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy, because a camera there can capture the conduct the voyeurism statute protects and can support privacy claims. These areas include:

• Bedrooms (even in furnished rentals or Airbnb properties)
• Bathrooms
• Private living spaces within the rental unit

A landlord or host whose hidden camera watches or records a tenant or guest using the bathroom, undressing, or engaged in sexual activity can face prosecution under the voyeurism statute, as well as civil liability and potential lease termination. Common areas of a rental building (lobbies, exterior entrances) may have visible security cameras, but these should be disclosed to tenants.

Hidden Cameras in the Workplace

Employers should not place hidden cameras in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy, because a camera there can capture the conduct the voyeurism statute protects and can support privacy claims:

• Restrooms and bathrooms
• Locker rooms and changing areas
• Lactation rooms
• Employee break rooms (depending on circumstances)

Cameras in open work areas, retail floors, warehouses, and other common spaces are generally permitted as long as employees are notified. D.C. does not have a specific statute requiring employers to disclose workplace camera locations, but the voyeurism statute prohibits secretly watching, or recording without express and informed consent, employees who are using a restroom, changing, or undressing.

Upskirting and Downblousing

Subsection (d) of the voyeurism statute bars intentionally capturing an image of a person's private areas, including undergarment-clad areas, without their express and informed consent, under circumstances in which they reasonably expect privacy. That can cover "upskirting" (photographing under a person's skirt) and similar invasive photography, including in an otherwise public place, because a person can reasonably expect that what is under their clothing is not being photographed.

Relationship to D.C. Wiretapping Law

How Voyeurism and Wiretapping Overlap

D.C.'s wiretapping statute (D.C. Code Section 23-542) and voyeurism statute (D.C. Code Section 22-3531) serve different but overlapping purposes:

• The wiretapping statute protects the content of wire and oral communications from unauthorized interception. It focuses on audio capture.
• The voyeurism statute protects visual privacy in situations where someone has a reasonable expectation of not being observed or recorded. It focuses on visual observation and recording.

A single act, such as placing a hidden camera with audio capability in someone's bedroom, can violate both statutes simultaneously. The wiretapping statute carries felony penalties (up to 5 years and $12,500 under D.C. Code Section 22-3571.01) at the same level as the voyeurism distribution prong under Section 22-3531(f)(2). The base voyeurism prongs (b), (c), and (d) carry misdemeanor penalties of up to 1 year and $2,500.

When Both Statutes Apply

Both statutes may apply when:

• A hidden camera captures both video and audio in a private setting
• A person uses a recording device to secretly observe someone while also intercepting their conversations
• Audio recording equipment is used to eavesdrop in a location where the subject has a visual privacy expectation

Prosecutors can charge violations of both statutes for the same conduct, potentially resulting in consecutive sentences.

Defenses to Voyeurism Charges

Common Legal Defenses

Defendants in voyeurism cases may raise several defenses:

• Consent: Subsections (c) and (d) apply only without the person's express and informed consent, so proof of that consent defeats those charges.
• No reasonable expectation of privacy: Consent is required only where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy, so a recording made where they had none (such as a public beach) may fall outside subsections (c) and (d).
• Statutory exemptions: Subsection (e) excludes lawful law enforcement surveillance, security monitoring in one's own home, security monitoring in a building with prominently posted surveillance signs, and recording a medical procedure on a patient unable to consent.
• No secret-observation purpose: Subsection (b) requires a hidden post or device used for the purpose of secretly watching. This argument does not help with subsection (c): recording someone undressing without consent is a crime even if the camera was in plain view.

Constitutional Considerations

First Amendment protections may come into play in certain voyeurism cases, particularly when the recording involves matters of public concern. However, courts have generally held that the government's interest in protecting personal privacy outweighs First Amendment concerns when recording occurs in locations with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

How to Report Voyeurism in D.C.

Filing a Police Report

If you discover a hidden camera or believe you have been the victim of voyeurism in D.C., you should:

1. Contact the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) by calling 911 for emergencies or the non-emergency line at (202) 727-9099
2. Do not disturb or remove the camera if possible, as it may be needed as evidence
3. Document the location and appearance of the device with your own photographs
4. Provide officers with any information about who may have placed the device
5. Request a copy of the police report for your records

Seeking a Civil Protection Order

If the person who recorded you is a current or former intimate partner, a family member, or someone you lived with in a close relationship, you can ask the court for a civil protection order (CPO) under D.C. Code Section 16-1003. A CPO can require the offender to stay away from you, stop specific conduct, and comply with other court-ordered conditions. A stranger, landlord, host, or employer usually does not fit those categories (a relationship based only on landlord and tenant does not count).

If there is no such relationship but the conduct is part of a course of conduct that amounts to stalking under D.C. Code Section 22-3133, you may be able to petition for an anti-stalking order instead (D.C. Code Section 16-1062), as long as at least one incident occurred within the 90 days before you file.

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

What is the penalty for voyeurism in the District of Columbia?

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. D.C. Code Section 22-4001's list of registration offenses does not include voyeurism, so a conviction does not, by itself, require sex offender registration unless the defendant agrees to it as part of a plea deal.

Is it illegal to install a hidden camera in a bathroom or bedroom in D.C.?

Yes, when the camera is used to watch or record people using the bathroom, undressing, or engaged in sexual activity. D.C. Code Section 22-3531 makes it a crime to install a hidden device for the purpose of secretly watching someone in those situations, or to record them without express and informed consent where they expect privacy. It applies to homeowners, landlords, employers, and short-term rental hosts. The law exempts security monitoring in your own home and in buildings with prominently posted surveillance signs, but do not count on those exemptions to cover a camera aimed at a bathroom or at guests undressing.

Can I sue someone for sharing intimate images of me without consent in D.C.?

Yes. D.C. Law 25-268, the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act, provides a civil cause of action for victims of nonconsensual pornography. You can seek actual damages or statutory damages of up to $10,000 (whichever is greater), injunctive relief to have the images removed, and attorney fees. The person who shared the images also faces criminal charges under D.C. Code Section 22-3052.

Does D.C. law cover upskirting and similar invasive photography?

Yes. D.C. Code Section 22-3531(d) makes it a crime to intentionally capture an image of a person's private areas, including undergarment-clad areas, without their express and informed consent, under circumstances in which they reasonably expect privacy. That can cover upskirt photos taken in an otherwise public place.

What should I do if I find a hidden camera in my rental unit in D.C.?

Contact the Metropolitan Police Department immediately. Do not disturb the camera if possible, as it may serve as evidence. Document its location with photos. File a police report, then consult an attorney about civil remedies, such as a claim for invasion of privacy.