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

Under D.C. Code Section 22-3531, the District of Columbia criminalizes secretly recording or observing a person in any space where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The offense is a misdemeanor carrying up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

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): knowingly occupying a hidden observation post to secretly observe another person under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
• Section 22-3531(c): using an electronic device to secretly observe or record another person under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
• Section 22-3531(d): using an electronic device to capture an image of a person's genitals, anus, or pubic area, or female breast, under or around the person's clothing without consent, where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances.

A fourth prong, Section 22-3531(f)(2), escalates the offense to a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison when the offender knowingly distributes or disseminates a recording captured 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 disclosure was not for a lawful purpose

This law is commonly referred to as D.C.'s "revenge porn" statute, though it applies to any nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images regardless of the motivation behind it.

Definitions

The statute defines key terms:

• Sexual image: A photograph, video, or digital image that depicts a person engaging in a sexual act or displaying their intimate body parts
• Disclose: To publish, distribute, exhibit, deliver, or make accessible to another person through any means, including electronic transmission
• Consent: A freely given agreement to the specific act of disclosure. Prior consent to being photographed does not constitute consent to the images being shared.

Criminal Penalties

Chapter 30A of Title 22 (enacted by D.C. Law 20-275, effective April 7, 2015) draws its principal line by conduct, not by audience size:

• D.C. Code Section 22-3052 criminalizes the knowing disclosure of a sexual image without the depicted person's consent. There is no recipient-count threshold built into Section 22-3052.
• D.C. Code Section 22-3053 addresses publication of a sexual image, which generally captures broader, public-facing distribution.
• D.C. Code Section 22-3054 establishes a second-degree offense for knowingly republishing a sexual image that resulted from someone else's earlier bad-faith disclosure or publication.
• D.C. Code Section 22-3056 provides a public-interest defense for newsworthy disclosures.

The distinction between Section 22-3052 (disclose) and Section 22-3053 (publish) is the central charging line; do not assume a "five-or-fewer / six-or-more" recipient threshold. 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 D.C. Law 25-268 (UCRUDIIA)

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) gives victims a private right of action for unauthorized disclosure of intimate images. Its remedies provision, D.C. Code Section 7-2165, allows actual damages, statutory damages up to $10,000, injunctive relief (image takedown), and attorney fees. 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.

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) codifies a separate, stronger civil cause of action at Title 7 Chapter 21D of the D.C. Code (§§ 7-2161 to 7-2169). 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. (Note: do not cite Section 7-2166, which addresses the statute of limitations.) Plaintiffs may recover actual damages, statutory damages up to $10,000, injunctive relief, and attorney fees.
• 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 is intended to close the AI deepfake gap left open by UCRUDIIA's "intimate image" definition. As of this article's update, B26-0524 is pending in committee and has 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(c): Wiretap Civil Remedies

If the voyeuristic recording also constitutes an illegal interception of oral communications under D.C. Code Section 23-542, victims may pursue civil remedies under D.C. Code Section 23-554(c). Subsection (c) is the operative sovereign-immunity-waiving subsection. The District of Columbia is itself a "person" under § 23-554(c), so a victim can sue D.C. (not just the individual government employee) when government conduct violates § 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. cannot install hidden cameras in areas where tenants or guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes:

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

A landlord or host who installs hidden cameras in these areas faces criminal prosecution under the voyeurism statute, 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 cannot place hidden cameras in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy:

• 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 secret recording in private areas.

Upskirting and Downblousing

The voyeurism statute specifically addresses the use of devices to look beneath or around someone's clothing to view intimate body parts. This covers "upskirting" (using a camera to photograph under a person's skirt) and similar invasive photography techniques. These acts are criminal regardless of whether they occur in a public or private location.

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: If the person being observed or recorded consented to the recording, no voyeurism occurred. The consent must be knowing and voluntary.
• No reasonable expectation of privacy: If the recording occurred in a location where the subject had no reasonable expectation of privacy (such as a public beach), the voyeurism statute does not apply.
• Lack of knowledge: The statute requires that the defendant "knowingly" engaged in the conduct. Accidental or inadvertent recordings may not meet this threshold.
• Not a hidden observation post: If the recording equipment was visible and openly placed, the "secret" element of the offense may not be satisfied.

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

Victims of voyeurism may also seek a civil protection order (CPO) under D.C. Code Section 16-1003. A CPO can require the offender to stay away from the victim, stop specific conduct, and comply with other court-ordered conditions.

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