District of Columbia
District of Columbia Video Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 15 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
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 prohibits secretly recording anyone in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
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. The First Amendment protects the right to photograph and record matters of public interest in public forums.
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(c) 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). Personal, non-commercial photography and video recording are generally permitted throughout the National Mall without a permit. However, commercial filming and photography may require a permit from NPS under 36 C.F.R. Section 7.96.
Key rules for the National Mall area include:
- Personal filming and photography are allowed without advance permission
- Tripods, monopods, and handheld stabilizers are permitted for personal use
- Commercial filming operations may need an NPS permit
- Drone use over the National Mall is prohibited under a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
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:
- You cannot place cameras in areas where guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms or guest bedrooms
- 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 defines voyeurism as knowingly occupying a hidden observation post or using a camera, video recorder, or other device to secretly observe or record another person in a location where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The statute specifically targets situations where a person:
- Uses a device to look beneath or around clothing to view intimate body parts
- Secretly records someone in a restroom, bathroom, locker room, or changing area
- Installs a hidden camera to observe someone in a private setting without their knowledge or consent
Penalties for Voyeurism
Voyeurism under D.C. Code Section 22-3531 is classified as a misdemeanor offense:
- Maximum imprisonment: 1 year
- Maximum fine: $2,500 (under D.C. Code Section 22-3571.01)
- Sex offender registration: Depending on the circumstances, a voyeurism conviction may require registration as a sex offender under D.C. Code Section 22-4001
"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, the statute applies even in otherwise public locations if the recording involves looking beneath or around someone's clothing without consent.
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 (enacted by D.C. Law 20-275, effective May 7, 2015) draws the criminal line by conduct, not by recipient count:
- D.C. Code Section 22-3052 criminalizes the knowing disclosure of a sexual image without the depicted person's consent.
- D.C. Code Section 22-3053 criminalizes the publication of a sexual image, generally capturing broader, public-facing distribution.
- D.C. Code Section 22-3054 establishes a second-degree offense.
- D.C. Code Section 22-3056 provides a public-interest defense.
Do not assume a "five-or-fewer / six-or-more" threshold; the operative distinction is disclose under Section 22-3052 versus publish under Section 22-3053.
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, is the pending legislative response to close the AI deepfake gap. 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: 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
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to record matters of public interest in public places. Most federal circuit courts to address the issue (First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh) have recognized a First Amendment right to record police in public. The D.C. Circuit has not issued a published civilian-recording holding. The closest authority is Price v. Garland, 45 F.4th 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1797 (May 1, 2023), a 2-1 panel decision (Ginsburg + Henderson with Tatel dissenting) on National Park Service commercial-filming permits. Price applies an analytic framework that is more restrictive of public-property recording claims than the sister-circuit consensus, so the in-circuit law on civilian police recording remains unsettled.
This protection encompasses:
- 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
More District of Columbia 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. The First Amendment protects the right to record matters of public interest in public forums.
Do I need permission to record video on the National Mall?
For personal, non-commercial use, no permit is required. You can freely take photos and videos at the National Mall, Lincoln Memorial, and other national monuments for personal purposes. Commercial filming may require a permit from the National Park Service.
What is the penalty for voyeurism in D.C.?
Voyeurism under 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. Depending on the circumstances, a conviction may also require sex offender registration.
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. D.C. criminalizes nonconsensual intimate-image conduct through D.C. Code Section 22-3052 (disclose) and D.C. Code Section 22-3053 (publish). The statute distinguishes by the type of conduct rather than by a recipient-count threshold. UCRUDIIA (D.C. Law 25-268, effective March 7, 2025) adds a separate civil cause of action at D.C. Code Section 7-2165 with statutory damages up to $10,000.
Updates
Relabeled a citations-column entry that mislabeled D.C. Code section 22-3055 as a civil-action provision when it is actually titled 'Exclusions,' and corrected D.C. Law 20-275's effective date from April 7, 2015 to the actual May 7, 2015.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the elements of D.C.'s nonconsensual-disclosure offense (Section 22-3052) to match the statute's actual mens rea (knowing or reckless disregard of non-consent, plus intent to harm or profit) instead of a negligence standard and an invented "lawful purpose" element, and corrected the statute's exclusions list, which had fabricated a law-enforcement/medical-treatment carve-out not present in the text and omitted the actual constitutionally-protected-activity exclusion.
Corrected the civil-remedies citation: D.C. Code Section 22-3055 is the criminal chapter's exclusions provision; the civil cause of action comes from the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act (D.C. Law 25-268).
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 23: Criminal Procedure. - Chapter 5: Warrants and Arrests. - Subchapter III: Wire Interception and Interception of Oral Communications.
§ 23-542Interception, disclosure, and use of wire or oral communications prohibited.In forcecited in 22 of our articles
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subchapter, any person who in the District of Columbia — (1) willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire or oral communication; (2) willfully discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication; or (3) willfully uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication; shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in [§ 22-3571.01] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; except that paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection shall not apply to the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, that has become common knowledge or public information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):District of Columbia courts have construed the one-party consent provision of D.C. Code 23-542(b)(2). United States v. Sell (1985) held the consent must be voluntary, the government meeting its burden by showing the party cooperated knowing what officers were doing. Thomas v. United States (2017) applied it to an interstate call.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Sell (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 1985, 487 A.2d 225)✓Police recorded a woman's calls with an officer she accused of coercing sex acts. Construing the one-party consent provision for the first time, the court held the government need only show she cooperated knowing what police were doing, and reversed the suppression order.
- David Thomas v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2017)“…s. & .lud. Proc. § 10- 402 [c)(.'£)(ii) (West 2015). Under D.C. Code § 23-542." the legislature has clearly defined w…”
- Thomas v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2017, 171 A.3d 151)✓Police in the District recorded a call between a voyeurism victim and the defendant, who was in Maryland and did not consent. The court held this section governs admissibility in District courts and does not incorporate Maryland's two-party rule, so suppression was denied.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide, District of Columbia Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 22: Criminal Offenses and Penalties. - Chapter 30A: Non-Consensual Pornography.
§ 22-3052Unlawful disclosure.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(a) It shall be unlawful in the District of Columbia for a person to knowingly disclose one or more sexual images of another identified or identifiable person when: (1) The person depicted did not consent to the disclosure of the sexual image; (2) The person disclosing the sexual image knew or consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person depicted did not consent to the disclosure; and (3) The person disclosed the sexual image with the intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain. (b) A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisoned for not more than 180 days, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Roberts v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2019)“…A. The unlawful-disclosure statute, D.C. Code § 22-3052 (2019 Supp.), provides in pertinent pa…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: District of Columbia Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Camera Penalties and Privacy Rights, District of Columbia Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), District of Columbia Pornography Laws (2026): What's Legal and What's a Felony
§ 22-3053First-degree unlawful publication.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) It shall be unlawful in the District of Columbia for a person to knowingly publish one or more sexual images of another identified or identifiable person, whether obtained directly from the person or from a third party or other source, when: (1) The person depicted did not consent to the publication of the sexual image; (2) The person publishing the sexual image knew or consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person depicted did not consent to the publication; and (3) The person published the sexual image with the intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain. (b) A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Roberts v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2019)“…other two offenses are first-degree unlawful publication, D.C. Code § 22-3053, which is a felony, and second-degree…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 22-3055Exclusions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) This chapter shall not apply to: (1) Constitutionally protected activity; or (2) A person disclosing or publishing a sexual image that resulted from the voluntary exposure of the person depicted in a public or commercial setting. (b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impose liability on an interactive computer service, as defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, approved February 8, 1996 (110 Stat. 139; 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2)), for content provided by another person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mashaud v. Boone (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2023)“…posed construction of the savings clause in this case. See D.C. Code § 22-3055(a)(1). But we see no risk of upsetting…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 22: Criminal Offenses and Penalties. - Chapter 35A: Voyeurism.
§ 22-3531Voyeurism.In forcecited in 10 of our articles
(a) For the purposes of this section, the term: (1) “Electronic device” means any electronic, mechanical, or digital equipment that captures visual or aural images, including cameras, computers, tape recorders, video recorders, and cellular telephones. (2) “Private area” means the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, anus, or buttocks, or female breast below the top of the areola. (b) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, it is unlawful for any person to occupy a hidden observation post or to install or maintain 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. (1) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, it is unlawful for a person to electronically record, without the express and informed consent of the individual being recorded, an individual who is: (A) Using a bathroom or rest room; (B) Totally or partially undressed or changing clothes; or (C) Engaging in sexual activity.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):BERNARD FREUNDEL v. UNITED STATES (2016) held section 22-3531(c) permits a separate punishment for each person unlawfully recorded, upholding 52 counts. In re Prosecution of Clinton Perrow (2017) held subsection (g), which assigned voyeurism prosecutions to the DC Attorney General, invalid under the Home Rule Act.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- BERNARD FREUNDEL v. UNITED STATES (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2016, 146 A.3d 375)✓A rabbi hid cameras in a mikvah changing room and recorded 52 women undressing over several years; the court held section 22-3531(c) is directed at individual privacy and permits a separate conviction and sentence for each victim recorded.
- In re Prosecution of Clinton Perrow (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2017, 172 A.3d 894)✓A man was charged with voyeurism for using his phone to record under a woman's dress; the court held voyeurism is a distinct offense from disorderly conduct or lewd acts, so subsection (g) assigning it to the DC Attorney General is invalid.
- Mario Giovani Valendzuela-Castillo v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2018, 180 A.3d 74)✓A restaurant worker quietly entered a ladies' room and lay on the floor to look under a stall door at a customer; the court held that position was a hidden observation post under section 22-3531(b)(1) even though he was concealed only briefly.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: District of Columbia Security Camera Laws: Installation Rules and Privacy Limits, District of Columbia Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights, D.C. Smart Glasses Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 22: Criminal Offenses and Penalties. - Chapter 40: Sex Offender Registration.
§ 22-4001Definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
For the purposes of this chapter, the term: (1) “Agency” means the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, established pursuant to § 24-133 or, until that agency assumes its duties, the Trustee appointed under § 24-132(a). (2) “Attends school” means being enrolled on a full-time or part-time basis in any type of public or private educational institution. (A) “Committed a registration offense” means: (i) Was convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a registration offense; or (ii) Was determined to be a sexual psychopath under §§ 22-3803 through 22-3811. (B) A person is not deemed to have committed a registration offense for purposes of this chapter, if the disposition described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph has been reversed or vacated, or if the person has been pardoned for the offense on the ground of innocence. (4) “Court” means the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 18 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Cox v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2024)“…strict of Columbia Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”), D.C. Code § 22-4001 et seq. On March 13, 2019, Mr. Cox fil…”
- Fallen v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2023)“…e and that do not involve minors.” Id. at 436 n.2; see also D.C. Code §§ 22-4001(6), (8), 22-4016. We have summarized SO…”
- Hickerson v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2023)“…f Columbia’s Sex Offender Registration Act of 1999 (SORA), D.C. Code §§ 22-4001 to -4017. Hickerson was requir…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 5: Police, Firefighters, Medical Examiner, and Forensic Sciences. - Chapter 1: Metropolitan Police. - Subchapter VIII-B: Body-Worn Cameras. - Part A: Regulation and Reporting Requirements.
§ 5-116.33Body-Worn Camera Program; reporting requirements; access.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
*NOTE: This section includes amendments by temporary legislation that will expire on January 22, 2027. To view the text of this section after the expiration of all emergency and temporary legislation, click this link: Past Permanent Version.* (a) By October 1, 2015, and every 6 months thereafter, the Mayor shall collect, and make available in a publicly accessible format, data on the Metropolitan Police Department’s Body-Worn Camera Program, including: (1) How many hours of body-worn camera recordings were collected; (2) How many times body-worn cameras failed while officers were on shift and the reasons for the failures; (3) How many times internal investigations were opened for a failure to turn on body-worn cameras during interactions, and the results of those internal investigations, including any discipline imposed; (4) How many times body-worn camera recordings were used by the Metropolitan Police Department in internal affairs investigations; (5) How many times body-worn camera recordings were used by the Metropolitan Police Department to investigate complaints made by an individual or group; (6) How many body-worn cameras are assigned to each police district and…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fraternal Order of Police-Metropolitan Police Department Labor Committee v. District of Columbia (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2023)“…e B of the Emergency Act amended 24 D.C.M.R. § 3900.10 and D.C. Code § 5-116.33 and required the Mayor to “publicly re…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: How to Get a Police Report in DC (2026): PD-10 & PD-251 Reports, DC Police Body Camera Laws: Rules & Public Access (2026)
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 7: Human Health Care and Safety. - Chapter 21D: Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images.
§ 7-2165Remedies.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) In an action under this chapter, a prevailing plaintiff may recover: (1) The greater of: (A) Economic and noneconomic damages proximately caused by the defendant's disclosure or threatened disclosure, including damages for emotional distress whether or not accompanied by other damages; or (B) Statutory damages not to exceed $10,000 against each defendant found liable under this chapter for all disclosures and threatened disclosures by the defendant of which the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known when filing the action or which became known during the pendency of the action. In determining the amount of statutory damages under this subparagraph, consideration must be given to the age of the parties at the time of the disclosure or threatened disclosure, the number of disclosures or threatened disclosures made by the defendant, the breadth of distribution of the image by the defendant, and other exacerbating or mitigating factors; (2) An amount equal to any monetary gain made by the defendant from disclosure of the intimate image; and (3) Punitive damages.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Code of Federal Regulations Title 32
§ 234.15Use of visual recording devices.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) The use of cameras or other visual recording devices on the Pentagon Reservation is prohibited, unless the use of such items are approved by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, the Installation Commander, or the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. (b) It shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map or graphical representation of the Pentagon Reservation without first obtaining permission of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, Installation Commander, or the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2013
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Davis v. ICI Services Corp. (District Court, District of Columbia 2013, 952 F. Supp. 2d 156)“…on the Pentagon Reservation without special authorization. 32 C.F.R. § 234.15. On July 7, 2011, ICI reported t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: District of Columbia Laws on Recording in Public: Complete Legal Guide
Code of Federal Regulations Title 36
§ 5.5Commercial filming, still photography, and audio recording.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) Commercial filming and still photography activities are subject to the provisions of 43 CFR part 5, subpart A. Failure to comply with any provision of 43 CFR part 5 is a violation of this section. (b) Audio recording does not require a permit unless: (1) It takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; (2) It uses equipment that requires mechanical transport; (3) It uses equipment that requires an external power source other than a battery pack; or (4) The agency would incur additional administrative costs to provide management and oversight of the permitted activity to: (i) Avoid unacceptable impacts and impairment to resources or values; or (ii) Minimize health or safety risks to the visiting public. (c) Cost recovery charges associated with processing the permit request and monitoring the permitted activity will be collected. (d) The location fee schedule for still photography conducted under a permit issued under 43 CFR part 5 applies to audio recording permits issued under this part. (e) Information collection.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Baca (District Court, E.D. California 2009, 610 F. Supp. 2d 1203)“…R. § 2.1 (a) (5), trespassing on a cultural resource, (2) 36 C.F.R. § 5.5 (a), filming a motion picture in a nati…”
- Price v. Barr (District Court, District of Columbia 2021)“…905 and its implementing regulations, 43 C.F.R. Part 5 and 36 C.F.R. § 5.5. Mr. Price brings this action against th…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 7.96National Capital Region.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) Applicability of regulations. This section applies to all park areas administered by National Capital Region in the District of Columbia and in Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and Stafford Counties and the City of Alexandria in Virginia and Prince Georges, Charles, Anne Arundel, and Montgomery Counties in Maryland and to other federal reservations in the environs of the District of Columbia, policed with the approval or concurrence of the head of the agency having jurisdiction or control over such reservations, pursuant to the provisions of the act of March 17, 1948 (62 Stat. 81). (b) Athletics —(1) Permits for organized games. Playing baseball, football, croquet, tennis, and other organized games or sports except pursuant to a permit and upon the grounds provided for such purposes, is prohibited. (2) Wet grounds. Persons holding a permit to engage in athletics at certain times and at places authorized for this use are prohibited from exercising the privilege of play accorded by the permit if the grounds are wet or otherwise unsuitable for play without damage to the turf. (3) Golf and tennis; fees.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 60 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee (Supreme Court of the United States 1992, 505 U.S. 672)“…y in the parks of the Nation's capital within its control. 36 CFR § 7.96 (h) (1991); see also United States v.…”
- Rita Warren v. Fairfax County (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 1999, 196 F.3d 186)“…arks and monuments have similar restrictions. See, e.g., 36 C.F.R. § 7.96 (g)(3)(ii)(A) (prohibiting demonstratio…”
- Oberwetter v. Hilliard (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 639 F.3d 545)“…in violation of the National Park Service Regulations. See 36 C.F.R. § 7.96(g)(3)(ii)(C). On May 21, 2008, Oberwett…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- D.C. Code Section 23-542 - Interception, Disclosure, and Use of Wire or Oral Communications Prohibited(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code Section 22-3531 - Voyeurism(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code Section 22-3052 - Nonconsensual Pornography(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code Section 22-3055 - Exclusions (constitutionally protected activity, voluntary public exposure, interactive computer service safe harbor)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code Section 22-4001 - Sex Offender Registration(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code Section 5-116.33 - Body-Worn Camera Program(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- National Park Service - National Mall and Memorial Parks(nps.gov).gov
- FAA - No Drone Zone Information(faa.gov).gov
- 36 C.F.R. Section 7.96 - National Capital Region Filming Regulations(ecfr.gov).gov
- DHS Federal Protective Service(dhs.gov).gov
- 36 C.F.R. Section 5.5 - Commercial Filming on NPS Property(ecfr.gov).gov
- 32 C.F.R. Section 234.15 - Pentagon Photographic Regulations(ecfr.gov).gov
- 41 C.F.R. Section 102-74.420 - Photographs on GSA Federal Property(ecfr.gov).gov
- D.C. Code Section 22-3053 - Nonconsensual Pornography (publish)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code Section 7-2165 - UCRUDIIA Remedies (D.C. Law 25-268)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- Price v. Garland, 45 F.4th 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2022)(law.justia.com)