District of Columbia
District of Columbia Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 22 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
In the District of Columbia, surveillance cameras are legal on your own property, and the District's voyeurism statute reaches a narrow set of enumerated situations rather than acting as a general privacy rule. DC regulates recording through several statutes, including D.C. Code 22-3531 (voyeurism) and D.C. Code 23-542, which establishes one-party consent for audio recording.
Overview of District of Columbia Surveillance Camera Laws
The District of Columbia does not rely on a single comprehensive surveillance camera statute. Instead, several laws work together to regulate where and how cameras can be used in the nation's capital. The key legal provisions include D.C. Code 23-542 (interception of wire and oral communications), D.C. Code 22-3531 (voyeurism), D.C. Code 7-2231.10 (rules for use of government surveillance cameras), and D.C. Code 5-133.19 (Metropolitan Police Department video surveillance regulations).
DC is unique among American jurisdictions because it is a federal district rather than a state. Both DC law and federal law apply to surveillance activities within the District. The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) provides a baseline, and DC's own statutes supplement those protections under D.C. Code 23-556.
The common thread across all of these laws is the concept of a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Surveillance cameras are generally legal in the District when used in areas where people do not expect privacy, such as public streets, front porches, and common areas of commercial buildings. Recording can become illegal when a camera captures one of the specific situations the voyeurism statute names, or when it captures audio in violation of the wiretapping statute. The voyeurism statute is not a general ban on recording anyone who expects privacy, and it carries its own express exceptions, described below.
Home Security Camera Laws in DC
The District of Columbia permits homeowners and residents to install security cameras on their own property for purposes such as deterring crime, monitoring deliveries, and keeping an eye on their home while away. There is no DC law requiring homeowners to register security cameras or obtain a permit before installation, although registration with MPD is required to receive a rebate through the Private Security Camera Incentive Program.
Where You Can Place Home Security Cameras
You can legally place cameras in the following areas of your property:
- Front door and porch areas for monitoring visitors and package deliveries
- Driveways and parking spaces to record vehicle activity
- Backyards and patios to monitor your own outdoor spaces
- Common living areas inside your home, such as living rooms and kitchens
- Exterior walls aimed at your own property boundaries and public sidewalks
Where Home Camera Placement Creates Legal Risk
These placements carry the most exposure, though the source of the limit is usually civil law rather than the voyeurism statute:
- Bathrooms and restrooms used by guests, roommates, or household workers
- Guest bedrooms where visitors are staying overnight
- Cameras pointed directly into a neighbor's windows or interior living spaces
- Any area where someone is undressing or engaged in private activities
Under D.C. Code 22-3531, it is unlawful to occupy a hidden observation post or to install or maintain a peephole, mirror, or electronic device for the purpose of secretly or surreptitiously observing an individual who is using a bathroom or rest room, is totally or partially undressed or changing clothes, or is engaging in sexual activity. A separate provision makes it unlawful to intentionally capture an image of a person's private area, defined as the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, anus, or buttocks, or female breast below the top of the areola, where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Violating these provisions is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,500.
Subsection (e)(2) of that same statute says the section does not prohibit security monitoring in one's own home. The exception is broad on its face and contains no carve-out for bathrooms or bedrooms, so a resident's own security camera is unlikely to be charged under 22-3531 no matter where in the home it sits. That is not the same as saying every placement is safe. A camera in a bathroom or in a guest's bedroom can still support a civil invasion-of-privacy claim, a camera trained on a neighbor can support a stalking charge under D.C. Code 22-3133, and audio recording is governed separately by the wiretapping statute.
Ring Doorbells and Smart Cameras
Video doorbells and smart security cameras like Ring, Nest, and Arlo are legal in the District of Columbia. These devices typically record your own porch and the public sidewalk or street in front of your home. Since these areas are in public view, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and recording is permitted.
However, if a doorbell camera captures a wide angle that includes a neighbor's interior spaces through their windows, this could raise privacy concerns under DC law. Position your smart cameras to focus primarily on your own property and public areas.
Audio Recording on Home Security Cameras
Many modern security cameras include microphone capabilities. In the District of Columbia, audio recording is governed separately from video recording under D.C. Code 23-542. DC follows a one-party consent rule, meaning you can record a conversation if you are a participant or if one party to the conversation has given prior consent.
For outdoor security cameras that pick up ambient sounds and conversations of passersby, the one-party consent rule applies to any conversations where you are a participant. Recording conversations between third parties where you are not a participant and no party has consented may violate the wiretapping statute. The safest approach for exterior cameras is to either disable audio recording or post visible signage indicating that audio and video recording is in progress.
DC Private Security Camera Rebate Program
The District of Columbia actively encourages residents and businesses to install security cameras through a generous rebate program administered by the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants (OVSJG). This program was established under D.C. Code 7-2831.
Rebate Amounts
The program provides the following rebates:
| Category | Per Camera Rebate | Maximum Total Rebate |
|---|---|---|
| Residential properties | Up to $200 | $500 |
| Commercial, nonprofit, and religious institutions | Up to $200 | $750 |
| Interior cameras for small businesses (under $2.5M gross receipts) | Up to $200 | $750 |
| Glass break sensors for qualifying businesses | Up to $200 | $600 |
Requirements to Qualify
To receive the rebate, you must meet these requirements:
- Your camera system must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department
- Cameras must meet minimum technical and video quality specifications
- Cameras must retain video footage for at least 48 hours
- You must provide proof of purchase, proof of MPD registration, and a photograph of each installed camera
- Tenants must provide documentation of property owner consent
- Only one camera system per property address is eligible
How to Apply
Submit your application through the OVSJG website with proof of purchase, proof of MPD registration, installation photos, and a screenshot of video capture from each camera. Applications are processed within 45 business days. For assistance, contact [email protected] or call (202) 727-5124.
As of 2025, the District's Private Security Camera Incentive Program has surpassed $3 million in rebates and 20,000 registered cameras.
Audio Recording Laws in DC (One-Party Consent)
The District of Columbia is a one-party consent jurisdiction for audio recording. D.C. Code 23-542 governs the interception and recording of wire and oral communications.
What the Law Says
Under D.C. Code 23-542, a person may intercept a wire or oral communication where that person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception. This applies unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.
What One-Party Consent Means in Practice
If you are part of a conversation, whether in person, on the phone, or through any electronic means, you can legally record it without telling the other participants. You do not need to inform anyone else that the recording is taking place.
However, you cannot place a hidden recording device to capture conversations between other people when you are not present and no party to the conversation has consented. Doing so constitutes illegal interception.
Penalties for Illegal Interception
Unlawful interception or possession of intercepting devices under D.C. Code 23-542 carries imprisonment of up to 5 years, a fine of up to $12,500 under the proportional fine schedule of D.C. Code 22-3571.01, or both. Additionally, victims of unlawful interception may pursue civil damages under D.C. Code 23-554, which provides for actual damages with a minimum of liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 per day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher.
Exceptions to the Recording Law
- Law enforcement acting under color of law may intercept communications where the officer is a party or one party has consented
- Court-authorized wiretaps are permitted under D.C. Code 23-546 through D.C. Code 23-547
- Communication common carriers and their employees may possess intercepting devices in the normal course of business
Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws in DC
The District of Columbia does not have a specific statute governing workplace video surveillance. Employers in DC generally follow federal law, common-law privacy principles, and the DC wiretapping statute when installing cameras at work.
What Employers Can Do
Employers may install video surveillance cameras in the following areas:
- Lobbies, hallways, and reception areas for security purposes
- Parking lots and garages to protect employees and company property
- Retail floors and cash register areas to prevent theft
- Warehouses and production floors to monitor operations
- Loading docks and entry points for security
What Employers Cannot Do
Even without a specific workplace surveillance statute, employers face restrictions based on privacy law:
- Restrooms and changing areas should be treated as off-limits, though the limit comes from civil privacy and employment law rather than from the voyeurism statute
- Break rooms and lounges may raise privacy concerns depending on circumstances
- Union meeting areas are protected under the National Labor Relations Act
- Private offices where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy may require notice before monitoring
One point employers commonly get wrong: D.C. Code 22-3531(e)(3) exempts from the voyeurism statute security monitoring in any building where signs are prominently displayed informing persons that the entire premises or designated portions of it are under surveillance. In a properly posted building, that criminal statute is not what bars a restroom or locker room camera. Common-law invasion of privacy, employment and labor law, and civil damages exposure still make those placements a serious risk, and no DC employer should install them.
Audio Surveillance at Work
Employers who use cameras with audio recording capabilities must comply with D.C. Code 23-542. Under the one-party consent rule, an employer cannot record private conversations between employees unless at least one party to the conversation has consented. The best practice for employers is to provide written notice to all employees that audio and video surveillance is in use and to obtain signed acknowledgments.
Employee Notification
While DC does not require employers to notify employees of video-only surveillance, providing notice is strongly recommended. A clear workplace surveillance policy should outline where cameras are located, whether audio is recorded, how footage is stored, who has access to recordings, and how long recordings are retained. This transparency helps employers avoid invasion of privacy claims.
Hidden Cameras and Voyeurism Laws
The District of Columbia has a dedicated voyeurism statute that specifically addresses hidden camera crimes.
D.C. Code 22-3531: Voyeurism
D.C. Code 22-3531 makes several surveillance-related acts illegal in the District.
Under this statute, an "electronic device" includes any electronic, mechanical, or digital equipment that captures visual or aural images, including cameras, computers, tape recorders, video recorders, and cellular telephones. A "private area" means the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, anus, or buttocks, or female breast below the top of the areola.
What Is Prohibited
Subject to the exceptions in subsection (e), it is unlawful to:
- Subsection (b): Occupy a hidden observation post or install or maintain a peephole, mirror, or electronic device for the purpose of secretly or surreptitiously observing an individual who is using a bathroom or rest room, is totally or partially undressed or changing clothes, or is engaging in sexual activity
- Subsection (c): Electronically record an individual in any of those same three situations without their express and informed consent, which is required where the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy
- Subsection (d): Intentionally capture an image of an individual's private area without consent, under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy
Read the triggering situations carefully. Subsections (b) and (c) apply only to the three enumerated circumstances, and subsection (d) is limited to the statutory definition of a private area. The statute does not create a general prohibition on recording anyone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy, so a camera that captures none of that conduct is not reached by 22-3531 even if the subject expected privacy.
Exceptions Under Subsection (e)
Subsection (e) states that the section does not prohibit:
- Any lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence observation or surveillance
- Security monitoring in one's own home
- Security monitoring in any building where there are signs prominently displayed informing persons that the entire premises or designated portions of the premises are under surveillance
- Any electronic recording of a medical procedure conducted under circumstances where the patient is unable to give consent
These exceptions apply to subsections (b), (c), and (d) alike, and the home and signed-building exceptions are written broadly, with no carve-out for bathrooms, changing areas, or bedrooms. Where one of them applies, the voyeurism statute is simply not the law that governs. Other law can still reach the same camera, including common-law invasion of privacy, the DC wiretapping statute for audio, the stalking statute, employment law, and lease terms.
Penalties for Voyeurism
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Imprisonment | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basic voyeurism (D.C. Code 22-3531(b), (c), or (d)) | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year | $2,500 |
| Distribution of voyeuristic images (D.C. Code 22-3531(f)(2)) | Felony | Up to 5 years | $12,500 |
Distribution of images that a person knows or has reason to know were taken in violation of the voyeurism statute is classified as a felony. This applies to distribution "directly or indirectly, by any means" and covers photographs, film, videotape, audiotape, digital video, and any other image or sound recording.
Nanny Cam Laws in DC
Nanny cameras, or hidden cameras used to monitor caregivers in your home, are subject to specific rules in the District of Columbia.
Video-Only Nanny Cams
Under federal and DC law, it is generally legal to install a video-only nanny cam in your own home without informing the caregiver. There is no federal or DC law that specifically prohibits homeowners from recording video inside their own residence.
The voyeurism statute under D.C. Code 22-3531 is unlikely to reach a camera you install inside your own residence, because subsection (e)(2) exempts security monitoring in one's own home from the entire section. That exception addresses criminal liability under this statute only. It does not resolve a caregiver's civil privacy claims, and it does not touch DC's audio recording rules.
Where You Can Place a Nanny Cam
- Living rooms and family rooms where childcare takes place
- Kitchens and dining areas
- Playrooms and nurseries (in common areas)
- Hallways and entryways
Nanny Cam Placements That Create Legal Risk
- Bathrooms used by the caregiver
- Bedrooms designated for the caregiver's private use (for live-in nannies)
- Any room where the caregiver changes clothes
These are the placements most likely to support a civil invasion-of-privacy suit by a caregiver even where the criminal statute's home exception applies. Where a live-in caregiver's room functions as their own residence rather than simply a room in yours, the reach of the home exception has not been tested, so the conservative course is to keep cameras out of those spaces or to disclose them in writing.
Audio on Nanny Cams
If your nanny cam records audio, DC's one-party consent law under D.C. Code 23-542 applies. Since you are not present during the conversations being recorded, and neither party to those conversations has consented, recording audio without the caregiver's knowledge could violate the wiretapping statute. The safest approach is to either disable audio recording or inform the caregiver in writing that audio and video recording takes place in the home.
Public Surveillance Network in DC
The District of Columbia operates one of the most extensive public surveillance networks of any American city. Multiple agencies coordinate camera systems across the capital.
MPD's CCTV System
The Metropolitan Police Department operates a CCTV system that includes permanently installed cameras owned and operated by MPD. These cameras are mounted on buildings primarily in the downtown DC area, focusing on public spaces around the National Mall, the U.S. Capitol, the White House, Union Station, and other critical installations, as well as major arteries and highways passing through downtown DC.
The use of this system is governed by D.C. Code 5-133.19, which requires the Chief of Police to issue regulations for the use of video surveillance cameras and technology. These proposed regulations must be submitted to the DC Council for a 45-day review period.
MPD's use of CCTV cameras is further regulated by DC Municipal Regulations Title 24, Chapter 25 and the department's General Order GO-603-07.
HSEMA Video Interoperability for Public Safety (VIPS)
The Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency operates the Video Interoperability for Public Safety (VIPS) program under D.C. Code 7-2231.10. This program integrates surveillance cameras from multiple agencies, including cameras managed by the Department of Transportation (DDOT).
MPD maintains a right of access to all surveillance cameras and technology in the VIPS program without limitation, except as stated in applicable rules or regulations governing the program.
CameraConnect DC
CameraConnect DC is the Metropolitan Police Department's community camera sharing program launched alongside MPD's Real-Time Crime Center. The program allows residents, business owners, and institutions to register their cameras in an online portal so law enforcement can quickly identify relevant cameras near a crime scene.
The program offers two registration tiers:
- Residents can register doorbell cameras and private CCTV systems so officers know evidence sources exist near crime scenes. Registration is free.
- Businesses and institutions such as office buildings, hotels, and apartment complexes can provide live feeds securely linked to MPD's Real-Time Crime Center for real-time monitoring.
Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024
The Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024 (D.C. Law 25-175) expanded DC's public surveillance capabilities. The law established a 2-year demonstration program of emergency communication and video surveillance systems at or near bus stops, train stations, and other public spaces. These systems must record at a minimum of 15 frames per second and at a resolution sufficient to clearly identify persons, objects, and locations.
The legislation also increased funding for the Private Security Camera System Incentive Program. Mayor Bowser's Fiscal Year 2025 budget allocated $2.3 million to expand Safe Commercial Corridors and the camera incentive program.
Neighbor Disputes Over Security Cameras
Disagreements between neighbors about security cameras are common in the District. DC law provides guidance on resolving these disputes.
When a Neighbor's Camera Is Legal
A neighbor's security camera is generally legal if it:
- Is pointed at the neighbor's own property
- Captures public areas like sidewalks and streets
- Records only video of areas in public view
- Does not peer into your windows or private enclosed spaces
When a Neighbor's Camera May Be Illegal
A neighbor's camera may violate DC law if it:
- Is deliberately aimed to look inside your home through windows
- Records your fully fenced backyard or patio from an elevated position, capturing areas hidden from public view
- Records audio of your private conversations without your consent
- Is a hidden camera placed on your property without your knowledge
Steps to Resolve a Camera Dispute
-
Talk to your neighbor. Many disputes arise from cameras that were not intentionally aimed at your property. A polite conversation can often resolve the issue.
-
Document the situation. If the camera clearly invades your privacy, take photos or video showing the camera's position and what it captures.
-
Send a written request. Ask your neighbor in writing to adjust the camera angle or position.
-
Contact local authorities. If you believe a neighbor is using a camera to engage in voyeurism or to record your private activities, file a police report. Violations of D.C. Code 22-3531 can result in criminal charges.
-
Seek a civil protection order. Under DC's stalking statute (D.C. Code 22-3133), placing someone under surveillance on two or more occasions can constitute stalking. The anti-stalking order provisions (D.C. Code Chapter 10A) allow you to seek a court order prohibiting continued surveillance.
-
Consult an attorney. You may have grounds for a civil invasion of privacy lawsuit if a neighbor's camera is deliberately aimed to capture your private activities.
Stalking by Surveillance in DC
Under D.C. Code 22-3133, stalking includes a course of conduct directed at a specific individual that involves following, monitoring, or placing under surveillance on two or more occasions. The basic penalty under D.C. Code 22-3134 is up to 12 months imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,500.
Enhanced penalties apply in certain situations:
- Up to 5 years imprisonment if the stalker was subject to a court order prohibiting contact, has a prior stalking conviction within 10 years, or was at least 4 years older than a minor victim
- Up to 10 years imprisonment if the stalker has two or more prior stalking convictions
Tenant and Landlord Camera Rules
DC tenants and landlords have distinct rights and responsibilities when it comes to security cameras.
Landlord Camera Placement
Landlords and building owners can install cameras in common areas of apartment buildings and rental properties, including:
- Lobbies and building entrances
- Hallways and stairwells
- Elevators
- Parking areas and garages
- Laundry facilities and mail rooms
- Shared amenities such as pools and gyms
Landlords should not install cameras inside individual tenant units, in building restrooms, or in any space where tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The limit here comes primarily from the lease, the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and common-law invasion of privacy rather than from the voyeurism statute, because D.C. Code 22-3531(e)(3) exempts security monitoring in a building posted with prominent surveillance signage from that section entirely. All surveillance equipment in common areas should be visible and conspicuous, and posted signage is standard practice in DC apartment buildings.
Tenant Camera Installation
Tenants generally have the right to install security cameras inside their own rental unit. However, tenants should review their lease agreement, as some leases require landlord permission before installing additional fixtures. Cameras installed by tenants should not record shared or common spaces beyond the tenant's unit.
Audio Recording in Apartments
The one-party consent rule under D.C. Code 23-542 applies to audio recording in apartment buildings. Landlords cannot install audio recording devices in common areas without the knowledge and consent of at least one party to any conversation being recorded. Using cameras with active microphones in hallways or lobbies without notice may violate the wiretapping statute.
Penalties Summary for Surveillance Violations in DC
| Violation | Statute | Classification | Max Imprisonment | Max Fine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voyeurism (basic offense) | D.C. Code 22-3531 | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year | $2,500 |
| Distribution of voyeuristic images | D.C. Code 22-3531(f)(2) | Felony | Up to 5 years | $12,500 |
| Unlawful interception of communications | D.C. Code 23-542 | Felony | Up to 5 years | $12,500 (22-3571.01 schedule) |
| Possession/sale of intercepting devices | D.C. Code 23-543 | Felony | Up to 5 years | $12,500 (22-3571.01 schedule) |
| Stalking (basic offense) | D.C. Code 22-3134 | Misdemeanor | Up to 12 months | $2,500 |
| Stalking (with prior conviction or court order) | D.C. Code 22-3134 | Felony | Up to 5 years | Varies |
| Stalking (2+ prior convictions) | D.C. Code 22-3134 | Felony | Up to 10 years | Varies |
Victims of unlawful interception also have a civil remedy under D.C. Code 23-554, which provides for actual damages with a minimum of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher.- District of Columbia Car Seat Laws
- District of Columbia Dog Bite Laws
- District of Columbia Hit and Run Laws
- District of Columbia Sexting Laws
- District of Columbia Child Support Laws
- District of Columbia Lemon Law
- District of Columbia Whistleblower Laws
- District of Columbia Statute of Limitations
- District of Columbia Windshield Mounting Laws
Related District of Columbia Camera and Privacy Laws
- District of Columbia Recording Laws covers the consent rule that governs camera audio in District of Columbia.
- District of Columbia Security Camera Recording Rules explains the recording-law side of camera use.
- District of Columbia Biometric Privacy Laws addresses facial recognition and biometric data.
- District of Columbia Ring Doorbell Laws covers video doorbell rules in District of Columbia.
Common Camera Questions
These national guides answer the most common surveillance camera questions:
Frequently Asked Questions
Are home security cameras legal in the District of Columbia?
Yes. DC residents can legally install security cameras on their own property. Cameras may record outdoor areas such as driveways, porches, and yards, as well as common indoor areas like living rooms and kitchens. D.C. Code 22-3531(e)(2) exempts security monitoring in one's own home from the voyeurism statute, so that statute is generally not what limits an interior home camera. Placements in bathrooms and guest bedrooms, and cameras aimed into a neighbor's home, still carry real exposure under common-law invasion of privacy and, for repeated monitoring of a specific person, the stalking statute at D.C. Code 22-3133. Outside the home exception, secretly observing or recording someone who is using a bathroom, is undressed or changing clothes, or is engaging in sexual activity, or capturing an image of a private area, is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $2,500 fine. DC also offers a rebate of up to $200 per camera through the Private Security Camera Incentive Program.
Can my neighbor legally point a security camera at my house in DC?
It depends on what the camera captures. A neighbor's camera may legally record their own property and public areas like sidewalks or streets, even if your home appears in the background. However, if the camera is deliberately aimed to look inside your windows or into a fully enclosed backyard, it can create liability. DC's voyeurism law at D.C. Code 22-3531 reaches it only in narrow circumstances, when the camera is used to secretly observe or record someone who is using a bathroom, is undressed or changing clothes, or is engaging in sexual activity, or when it captures an image of a private area, and that statute also exempts security monitoring in one's own home. A pattern of monitoring on two or more occasions can qualify as stalking under D.C. Code 22-3133, and a camera trained on your private spaces can support a civil invasion-of-privacy claim. You can ask the neighbor to adjust the camera, file a police report, seek an anti-stalking order, or consult an attorney about a civil privacy claim.
Is it legal to use a nanny cam in DC?
Yes, you can use a video-only nanny cam in your DC home. D.C. Code 22-3531(e)(2) exempts security monitoring in one's own home from the voyeurism statute, so that statute is generally not what limits placement. Bathrooms and bedrooms set aside for a live-in caregiver's private use remain the placements most likely to draw a civil invasion-of-privacy claim, so keep cameras out of them or disclose them in writing. If the nanny cam records audio, you must comply with DC's one-party consent rule under D.C. Code 23-542. Since you are not present during the recorded conversations, the safest approach is to inform the caregiver about audio recording or disable the microphone entirely. Violating the wiretapping statute can result in up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $12,500 under the D.C. Code 22-3571.01 fine schedule.
What is DC's Private Security Camera Rebate Program?
The District of Columbia offers rebates of up to $200 per camera through the Private Security Camera System Incentive Program, established under D.C. Code 7-2831 and administered by the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants. Residential properties can receive up to $500 total, and commercial, nonprofit, and religious institutions can receive up to $750. To qualify, cameras must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department and must retain at least 48 hours of footage. Applications are processed within 45 business days.
What are the penalties for illegal surveillance in DC?
Penalties depend on the specific violation. Voyeurism under D.C. Code 22-3531 is a misdemeanor carrying up to 1 year in jail and a $2,500 fine. Distributing voyeuristic images is a felony with up to 5 years in prison and a $12,500 fine. Unlawful interception of communications under D.C. Code 23-542 carries up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $12,500 under the D.C. Code 22-3571.01 schedule. Stalking through surveillance is defined under D.C. Code 22-3133 and penalized under D.C. Code 22-3134, which carries up to 12 months for a first offense, up to 5 years with aggravating factors, and up to 10 years for repeat offenders. Victims can also pursue civil damages with a minimum of $100 per day of violation or $1,000.
Updates
Corrected the article's description of D.C. Code 22-3531 to state the three specific situations the voyeurism statute actually reaches and its express exceptions for security monitoring in one's own home and in buildings posted with surveillance signage, and reframed the home, nanny cam, workplace, and landlord guidance accordingly.
Updated the wiretapping fine amounts to the current D.C. proportional fine schedule and fixed a citation link.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Re-pinned two mis-cited penalty provisions to the correct statute sections: the interception/device-possession penalty belongs to D.C. Code 23-542 (article said 23-543), and the stalking penalty ranges belong to D.C. Code 22-3134, which sets the penalties, not 22-3133, which only defines the offense.
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 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.
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.
§ 23-543Possession, sale, distribution, manufacture, assembly, and advertising of wire or oral communication intercepting devices prohibited.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in subsection (b) of this section, any person who in the District of Columbia — (1) willfully possesses, sells, distributes, manufactures, or assembles an intercepting device, the design of which renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of a wire or oral communication; or (2) willfully places in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication any advertisement of — (A) any intercepting device, the design of which renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of a wire or oral communication; or (B) any intercepting device where such advertisement promotes the use of such device for the purpose of the surreptitious 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.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
§ 23-554Authorization for recovery of civil damages.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
(a) Any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this subchapter shall — (1) have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use, such communications; and (2) be entitled to recover from any such person — (A) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000 whichever is higher; (B) punitive damages; and (C) a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (b) Good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a complete defense to an action brought under this section or any other law. (c) As used in this section, the term “person” includes the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia shall not assert any governmental immunity to avoid liability under this section. Judgment against the District of Columbia shall not constitute a bar to action against any other person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Democracy Partners, LLC v. Project Veritas Action Fund (District Court, District of Columbia 2020)“…each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher. See D.C. Code § 23-554(a)(2)(A). Both statutes also allow for…”
- Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc. v. Gaubatz (District Court, District of Columbia 2022)“…oral or wire communication.” D.C. Code § 23-542(a)(2)-(3); D.C. Code § 23-554(a)(1) (authorizing civil action for re…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 23-556Relation to Federal law on wire interception and interception of oral communications.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Sections 23-542, 23-543, 23-545 [repealed], 23-553, 23-554, and 23-555 of this subchapter shall be construed to supplement, and not to supersede or otherwise limit, the provisions of chapter 119 of Title 18, United States Code (relating to wire interception and interception of oral communications). (b) Sections 23-546, 23-547, 23-548, 23-549, 23-550, 23-551, and 23-552 of this subchapter shall be construed not to supersede or otherwise limit the provisions of chapter 119 of Title 18, United States Code, except in cases of irreconcilable conflict.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Gerald F. Johnson, United States of America v. Thomas Johnson, United States of America v. Edward T. Wooten (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1982, 696 F.2d 115)“…es us to reject that reading — can be easily parried: Under D.C.Code Ann. § 23-556(b) (1981), the specific authorization p…”
- Democracy Partners, LLC v. Project Veritas Action Fund (District Court, District of Columbia 2020)“…erwise limit, the provisions of [the Federal Wiretap Act].” D.C. Code § 23-556(a).…”
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 31A: Stalking.
§ 22-3133Stalking.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) It is unlawful for a person to purposefully engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific individual: (1) With the intent to cause that individual to: (A) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person; (B) Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or (C) Suffer emotional distress; (2) That the person knows would cause that individual reasonably to: (A) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person; (B) Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or (C) Suffer emotional distress; or (3) That the person should have known would cause a reasonable person in the individual’s circumstances to: (A) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person; (B) Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or (C) Suffer emotional distress. (b) This section does not apply to constitutionally protected activity. (c) Where a single act is of a continuing nature, each 24-hour period constitutes a separate occasion. (d) The conduct on each of the occasions need not be the same as it is on the others.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Johnnie Coleman v. United States (2019) held that Section 22-3133 requires proof of the culpable mental state during at least two of the occasions making up the course of conduct. Ronald L. Atkinson v. United States (2015) treated a jury instruction merging the statute's alternative intent theories as error, but harmless.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ronald L. Atkinson v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2015, 121 A.3d 780)✓A man made repeated late-night calls to a former partner, contacted her parents and tried to enter her building; the court found the jury charge merged the intent theories in Section 22-3133(a)(2) and (a)(3), but held the error harmless and affirmed the stalking conviction.
- Johnnie Coleman v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2019, 202 A.3d 1127)✓A group-home resident stared at a neighbor on a bus and from a backyard, then stopped her at a recreation center; the court held Section 22-3133 requires proof of a culpable mental state on at least two of the occasions making up the course of conduct, and remanded.
- Joy Whylie v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2014, 98 A.3d 156)✓A woman placed thousands of threatening calls to a nurse over eight months and drew five stalking counts; the court treated calls made after a no-contact order as a separate course of conduct under Section 22-3133, but held two counts covered one course and their sentences merge.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 22-3134Penalties.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person who violates § 22-3133 shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisoned for not more than 12 months, or both. (b) A person who violates § 22-3133 shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, if the person: (1) At the time, was subject to a court, parole, or supervised release order prohibiting contact with the specific individual; (2) Has one prior conviction in any jurisdiction of stalking any person within the previous 10 years; (3) At the time, was at least 4 years older than the specific individual and the specific individual was less than 18 years of age; or (4) Caused more than $ 2,500 in financial injury. (c) A person who violates § 22-3133 shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, if the person has 2 or more prior convictions in any jurisdiction for stalking any person, at least one of which was for a jury demandable offense.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Johnnie Coleman v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2019, 202 A.3d 1127)“…ng already has a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, see D.C. Code § 22-3134(a) (“[A] person who violates § 22- 3133…”
- Joy Whylie v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2014, 98 A.3d 156)“…ibiting contact with the victim[.]” Committee Report at 33; D.C. Code § 22-3134 (b). We think it consistent with the le…”
- Keerikkattil v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2024)“…mum prison sentence of twelve months of incarceration. See D.C. Code § 22-3134(a). But the government requested a “le…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 22-3132Definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
For the purposes of this chapter, the term: (1) “Any device” means electronic, mechanical, digital or any other equipment, including: a camera, spycam, computer, spyware, microphone, audio or video recorder, global positioning system, electronic monitoring system, listening device, night-vision goggles, binoculars, telescope, or spyglass. (2) “Any means” includes the use of a telephone, mail, delivery service, e-mail, website, or other method of communication or any device. (3) “Communicating” means using oral or written language, photographs, pictures, signs, symbols, gestures, or other acts or objects that are intended to convey a message.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Johnnie Coleman v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2019, 202 A.3d 1127)“…ollowing the complainant or communicating with him or her. D.C. Code §§ 22-3132(8), -3133(a). As part of his sufficien…”
- Keerikkattil v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2024)“…re medical or other professional treatment or counseling.” D.C. Code § 22-3132(4). To constitute a “course of conduct,…”
- Mashaud v. Boone (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2023)“…uld reasonably cause another to suffer emotional distress. D.C. Code §§ 22-3132(8)(A), -3133. By its terms, it restric…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 7: Human Health Care and Safety. - Chapter 22: Homeland Security. - Subchapter I: Homeland Security Program. - Part B: Homeland Security Program Implementation.
§ 7-2231.10Rules for use of surveillance cameras.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) The Mayor, pursuant to subchapter I of Chapter 5 of Title 2, shall issue rules for the use of surveillance cameras and technology in the operation of its Video Interoperability for Public Safety (“VIPS”) program; provided, that the Agency shall not use cameras maintained or monitored by either the Department of Corrections or the Metropolitan Police Department. The proposed rules shall be submitted to the Council for a 45-day period of review, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, and days of Council recess. If the Council does not approve or disapprove the proposed rules, by resolution, within this 45-day review period, the proposed rules shall be deemed disapproved. (b) Until rules are issued and approved pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the use of any video surveillance cameras that are part of the VIPS program shall be governed by the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Use of Closed Circuit Television to Combat Crime Amendment Act of 2006, effective March 14, 2007 (D.C. Law 16-284; 54 DCR 938), and published in Chapter 25 of Title 24 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 5: Police, Firefighters, Medical Examiner, and Forensic Sciences. - Chapter 1: Metropolitan Police. - Subchapter XVII: Miscellaneous.
§ 5-133.19Regulations for use of video surveillance by Metropolitan Police Department.In force
(a) The Chief of Police, pursuant to subchapter I of Chapter 5 of Title 2, shall issue regulations pertaining to the Metropolitan Police Department’s use of video surveillance cameras and technology in the operation of its Joint Operations Command Center/Synchronized Operations Command Center. (b) The proposed regulations shall be submitted to the Council for a 45-day period of review, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, and days of Council recess. (c) If the Council does not approve or disapprove the proposed regulations, in whole or in part, by resolution, within this 45-day review period, the proposed regulations shall be deemed disapproved.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 7: Human Health Care and Safety. - Chapter 28: Security and Fire Alarm Systems Regulations. - Subchapter II: Private Security Camera System Incentive Program.
§ 7-2831Private Security Camera System Incentive Program.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) There is established a Private Security Camera System Incentive Program ("Program"), to be administered by the Mayor, to encourage the purchase and installation of the following: (A) A security camera system on the exterior of a building owned or leased by an individual, business, nonprofit, religious institution, or an entity as that term is defined in § 29-101.02(10); (B) A security camera system on the interior of a building owned or leased by a business that has less than $2.5 million federal gross receipts or sales; and (C) Glass break sensors installed on the interior of a building owned or leased by a business that has less than $2.5 million federal gross receipts or sales. (2) A security camera system purchased and installed pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) or (B) of this subsection shall be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 418 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
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 23-542 - Interception, disclosure, and use of wire or oral communications prohibited(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code 22-3531 - Voyeurism(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code 7-2231.10 - Rules for use of surveillance cameras(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code 5-133.19 - Regulations for use of video surveillance by MPD(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code 7-2831 - Private Security Camera System Incentive Program(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code 23-543 - Possession, sale, distribution of intercepting devices prohibited(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code 23-554 - Authorization for recovery of civil damages(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code 22-3133 - Stalking(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code 22-3134 - Stalking Penalties(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- D.C. Code 23-556 - Relation to Federal law on wire interception(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- Private Security Camera Incentive Program - OVSJG(ovsjg.dc.gov).gov
- Private Security Camera Rebate Program - OVSJG(ovsjg.dc.gov).gov
- Private Security Camera Rebate Program FAQs - OVSJG(ovsjg.dc.gov).gov
- CameraConnect DC - MPD(mpdc.dc.gov).gov
- CCTV Policies and Procedures - MPD(mpdc.dc.gov).gov
- MPD CCTV System Overview(mpdc.dc.gov).gov
- CCTV Neighborhood-Based Cameras - MPD(mpdc.dc.gov).gov
- Open Government, FOIA, and CCTV Requests - HSEMA(hsema.dc.gov).gov
- Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024 (D.C. Law 25-175)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- Mayor Bowser Announces Camera Incentive Program Surpasses $3 Million(ovsjg.dc.gov).gov
- Mayor Bowser and Chief Smith Launch CameraConnect DC(mpdc.dc.gov).gov
- D.C. Code 22-3132 - Stalking Definitions(code.dccouncil.gov).gov