Recording Law for Voiceprints & Biometric Data in District of Columbia

In the District of Columbia, you can lawfully record any conversation you are part of without telling the other person. This is because DC’s wiretap statute uses a one-party consent rule. The law says it is not unlawful under D.C. Code § 23-542(b)(3) to intercept a wire or oral communication where the person intercepting is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent. The statute itself states: "It shall not be unlawful under this subchapter to intercept a wire or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent." This rule applies whether you’re recording in person, on a phone call, or through another electronic channel. It does not require you to get anyone else’s permission before you start recording.

DC’s wiretap statute only covers the "aural" — that is, the audio — part of a communication. The law defines "intercept" as "the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device." This means the law focuses on capturing sound, not images. If you record only video without audio, the wiretap statute does not apply at all. The same goes for silent video taken during a conversation — the audio channel is what triggers the law, not the visual one. The statute’s protections are triggered only when a communication qualifies as an "oral communication" under D.C. Code § 23-541(2), which requires the speaker to exhibit an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception and the circumstances must justify that expectation.

If a conversation happens where the speaker has no reasonable expectation that it won’t be overheard, DC’s wiretap law does not protect it. The statute says an "oral communication" is only protected if the speaker shows an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception and the circumstances justify that expectation. For example, loud arguments on a public sidewalk or conversations in a busy park are generally not protected. Because no DC Court of Appeals case squarely applying this test to a wearable-camera fact pattern was located, treat any sign the speaker is trying to keep the conversation private as a cue to pause recording and get legal advice before continuing.

The Metropolitan Police Department’s own policy says the public has a First Amendment right to record officers doing their jobs in public. MPD’s policy states: "The public has a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and audio record Metropolitan Police Department members conducting official business in any public space, so long as the recording does not interfere with police activity. Officers may direct a person to reposition if they are interfering but may not order recording to stop." However, the federal appeals court covering DC has not issued a definitive published decision recognizing this right, unlike the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. Because this point is not settled in DC, if an officer tells you to stop recording or tries to seize your device, pause active capture immediately and flag the footage for attorney review before using or sharing it.

The District of Columbia has no law that requires you to get someone’s permission before capturing a biometric voiceprint from their recorded voice. Unlike states with laws like Illinois’ BIPA, DC does not require prior consent, written notices, or retention schedules for biometric data collection. The Security Breach Protection Act, D.C. Code §§ 28-3851 to 28-3853, is the only DC law that mentions "voice print" and treats biometric data as "personal information" that must be protected under a post-breach notification regime. If a voiceprint you’ve stored is later breached, the law requires you to notify affected individuals and the DC Attorney General. Failing to give this required notice can trigger both government enforcement under § 28-3909 and a private lawsuit under D.C. Code § 28-3905, which makes a breach-notification failure an unfair or deceptive trade practice and allows consumers and public-interest organizations to sue for treble damages or $1,500 per violation (whichever is greater), actual damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief.

Imagine you’re a landlord and you record a heated phone call with a tenant about unpaid rent. You use a voice-ID feature to confirm the caller’s identity for your records. Under DC law, you can do this without telling the tenant because you’re a party to the call and DC’s one-party consent rule allows it. If you later store a biometric voiceprint from that recording, DC has no law requiring you to get the tenant’s consent to capture or store it. However, if that stored voiceprint is later exposed in a data breach, you must notify the tenant and the DC Attorney General under the Security Breach Protection Act. If you fail to give that notice, the tenant (or a public-interest group suing on their behalf) could sue you for damages and attorney’s fees.

DC’s wiretap statute protects only communications that meet the statutory definition of an "oral communication." Under D.C. Code § 23-541(2), an oral communication is "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation." This is a two-part test: the speaker must subjectively exhibit an expectation of non-interception, and the circumstances must objectively justify that expectation. The statute does not protect conversations where the speaker has no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as loud arguments on a public sidewalk or conversations in a busy park. Because no DC Court of Appeals case squarely applying this test to a wearable-camera fact pattern was located, treat any sign the speaker is trying to keep the conversation private as a cue to pause recording and get legal advice before continuing.

The Metropolitan Police Department’s General Order GO-OPS-304.19, effective July 17, 2012, expressly states the public has a First Amendment right to video-record, photograph, and audio-record MPD members conducting official business in any public space, so long as the recording doesn’t interfere with police activity. Officers may direct a person to reposition if they are interfering but may not order recording to stop. This policy confirms that MPD itself treats such recording as lawful under its own administrative rules. However, the D.C. Circuit has not issued a definitive published decision recognizing a First Amendment right to record police, unlike the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. Because this point is not settled in DC, if an officer tells you to stop recording or tries to seize your device, pause active capture immediately and flag the footage for attorney review before using or sharing it.