{ "batch": "6748-district-of-columbia-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "articles": [ { "id": "learn_r6748_district_of_columbia_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_dc_anchor_code", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia: statutory code index", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] The statutes of the District of Columbia are published on the official D.C. Law Library site maintained by the Council of the District of Columbia under Code of the District of Columbia Title 23 (Criminal Procedure).", "body": "The statutes of the District of Columbia are published on the official D.C. Law Library site maintained by the Council of the District of Columbia under Code of the District of Columbia Title 23 (Criminal Procedure).\n\nWhat Council of the District of Columbia actually says:\n\n“Title 23. Criminal Procedure. [Enacted title]”\n\nNote: Anchor record for District of Columbia code. Region tagged us-al per batch instructions.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/23", "last_verified": "2026-10-17", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Council of the District of Columbia", "evidence_quote": "Title 23. Criminal Procedure. [Enacted title]", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "6748-district-of-columbia-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "District of Columbia", "topic": "statutory code index", "applies_to_country": "*", "tags": { "lane": "audio", "stage": "running", "region": [ "us-al" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r6748_district_of_columbia_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_dc_wiretap_consent", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia: recording consent law", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia law permits a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties has given prior consent, provided the interception is not for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act or other injurious act.", "body": "District of Columbia law permits a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties has given prior consent, provided the interception is not for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act or other injurious act.\n\nWhat Council of the District of Columbia actually says:\n\n“(3) a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, any State, or the District of Columbia, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.”\n\nNote: Establishes one-party consent rule for private individuals in D.C.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/23-542", "last_verified": "2026-10-17", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Council of the District of Columbia", "evidence_quote": "(3) a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, any State, or the District of Columbia, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "6748-district-of-columbia-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "District of Columbia", "topic": "recording consent law", "applies_to_country": "*", "tags": { "lane": "audio", "stage": "running", "region": [ "us-al" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r6748_district_of_columbia_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_dc_wiretap_lawenforcement", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia: law enforcement wiretap consent", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia law permits a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent.", "body": "District of Columbia law permits a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent.\n\nWhat Council of the District of Columbia actually says:\n\n“(2) a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception; or”\n\nNote: Law enforcement / color of law consent exception.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/23-542", "last_verified": "2026-10-17", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Council of the District of Columbia", "evidence_quote": "(2) a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception; or", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "6748-district-of-columbia-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "District of Columbia", "topic": "law enforcement wiretap consent", "applies_to_country": "*", "tags": { "lane": "audio", "stage": "running", "region": [ "us-al" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r6748_district_of_columbia_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_dc_wiretap_penalties", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia: wiretap criminal penalties", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Any person in the District of Columbia who willfully intercepts, discloses, or uses wire or oral communications in violation of the statute shall be fined in accordance with § 22-3571.01 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.", "body": "Any person in the District of Columbia who willfully intercepts, discloses, or uses wire or oral communications in violation of the statute shall be fined in accordance with § 22-3571.01 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.\n\nWhat Council of the District of Columbia actually says:\n\n“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.”\n\nNote: Criminal penalty provision for illegal wire interception.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/23-542", "last_verified": "2026-10-17", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Council of the District of Columbia", "evidence_quote": "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.", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "6748-district-of-columbia-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "District of Columbia", "topic": "wiretap criminal penalties", "applies_to_country": "*", "tags": { "lane": "audio", "stage": "running", "region": [ "us-al" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r6748_district_of_columbia_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_dc_wiretap_def_oral", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia: definition of oral communication", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Under District of Columbia law, the term oral communication means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation.", "body": "Under District of Columbia law, the term oral communication means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation.\n\nWhat Council of the District of Columbia actually says:\n\n“(2) the term “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation;”\n\nNote: Statutory definition of oral communication requiring reasonable expectation of privacy.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/23-541", "last_verified": "2026-10-17", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Council of the District of Columbia", "evidence_quote": "(2) the term “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation;", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "6748-district-of-columbia-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "District of Columbia", "topic": "definition of oral communication", "applies_to_country": "*", "tags": { "lane": "audio", "stage": "running", "region": [ "us-al" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r6748_district_of_columbia_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_dc_wiretap_def_wire", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia: definition of wire communication", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Under District of Columbia law, the term wire communication means any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities.", "body": "Under District of Columbia law, the term wire communication means any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities.\n\nWhat Council of the District of Columbia actually says:\n\n“(1) the term “wire communication” means any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities;”\n\nNote: Statutory definition of wire communication.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/23-541", "last_verified": "2026-10-17", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Council of the District of Columbia", "evidence_quote": "(1) the term “wire communication” means any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities;", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "6748-district-of-columbia-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "District of Columbia", "topic": "definition of wire communication", "applies_to_country": "*", "tags": { "lane": "audio", "stage": "running", "region": [ "us-al" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r6748_district_of_columbia_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_dc_wiretap_def_intercept", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia: definition of intercept", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Under District of Columbia law, the term intercept means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device.", "body": "Under District of Columbia law, the term intercept means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device.\n\nWhat Council of the District of Columbia actually says:\n\n“(3) the term “intercept” means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device;”\n\nNote: Statutory definition highlighting aural acquisition and intercepting device requirement.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/23-541", "last_verified": "2026-10-17", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Council of the District of Columbia", "evidence_quote": "(3) the term “intercept” means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device;", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "6748-district-of-columbia-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "District of Columbia", "topic": "definition of intercept", "applies_to_country": "*", "tags": { "lane": "audio", "stage": "running", "region": [ "us-al" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r6748_district_of_columbia_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_dc_wiretap_civil_cause", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia: civil remedy for wiretap", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of D.C. wiretapping law has 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.", "body": "Any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of D.C. wiretapping law has 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.\n\nWhat Council of the District of Columbia actually says:\n\n“(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”\n\nNote: Civil cause of action provision.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/23-554", "last_verified": "2026-10-17", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Council of the District of Columbia", "evidence_quote": "(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", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "6748-district-of-columbia-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "District of Columbia", "topic": "civil remedy for wiretap", "applies_to_country": "*", "tags": { "lane": "audio", "stage": "running", "region": [ "us-al" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "thin_body", "source_unverifiable:fetch_failed:budget" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r6748_district_of_columbia_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_dc_wiretap_civil_recovery", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia: civil damages recovery", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] A person entitled to civil recovery for unlawful interception in D.C. may recover actual damages (not less than liquidated damages computed at $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher), punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs.", "body": "A person entitled to civil recovery for unlawful interception in D.C. may recover actual damages (not less than liquidated damages computed at $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher), punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs.\n\nWhat Council of the District of Columbia actually says:\n\n“(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.”\n\nNote: Civil damage amounts, liquidated damages, and attorney fees.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/23-554", "last_verified": "2026-10-17", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Council of the District of Columbia", "evidence_quote": "(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.", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "6748-district-of-columbia-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "District of Columbia", "topic": "civil damages recovery", "applies_to_country": "*", "tags": { "lane": "audio", "stage": "running", "region": [ "us-al" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r6748_district_of_columbia_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_dc_wiretap_commoncarrier", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia: common carrier wiretap exception", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] District of Columbia law exempts communication common carrier switchboard operators, officers, agents, or employees from unlawful interception liability when intercepting communications in the normal course of employment necessary to rendering service or protecting carrier rights and property.", "body": "District of Columbia law exempts communication common carrier switchboard operators, officers, agents, or employees from unlawful interception liability when intercepting communications in the normal course of employment necessary to rendering service or protecting carrier rights and property.\n\nWhat Council of the District of Columbia actually says:\n\n“(1) an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent, or employee of a communication common carrier, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication, in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendering of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of such communication, or to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to an investigative or law enforcement officer who, under this subchapter, is authorized to intercept a wire or oral communication, but no communication common carrier shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks;”\n\nNote: Common carrier exception clause.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/23-542", "last_verified": "2026-10-17", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Council of the District of Columbia", "evidence_quote": "(1) an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent, or employee of a communication common carrier, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication, in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendering of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of such communication, or to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to an investigative or law enforcement officer who, under this subchapter, is authorized to intercept a wire or oral communication, but no communication common carrier shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks;", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "6748-district-of-columbia-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "District of Columbia", "topic": "common carrier wiretap exception", "applies_to_country": "*", "tags": { "lane": "audio", "stage": "running", "region": [ "us-al" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "thin_body", "source_unverifiable:fetch_failed:budget" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } } ] }