David Thomas v. United States
15-CM-1380
| D.C. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Appellant David Thomas secretly photographed his sexual partner, J.P., sleeping nude and staged identifying items in the photo; she did not consent and later discovered the image had been shared online.
- J.P. reported the photo to police, obtained a copy when shared by a friend, and met with Detective Yulfo.
- From a D.C. police station, and with J.P.'s knowledge and consent, Detective Yulfo arranged a recorded phone call from J.P. to appellant; appellant was traveling and located in Maryland during the call.
- During the recorded call (one-party consent under D.C. law), appellant admitted taking and distributing the photo.
- Appellant was charged with attempted voyeurism, moved to suppress the recording arguing Maryland’s two-party-consent rule applied extraterritorially, the trial court denied suppression, and appellant was convicted and sentenced (probation and community service).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland law governs admissibility of a recording made while appellant was in Maryland | Maryland’s two-party-consent rule should control because appellant was located in Maryland when recorded | D.C. law governs admissibility; the recording complied with D.C. one-party consent statute so it is admissible in D.C. courts | Court held D.C. law governs; recording admissible because it met D.C. statutory requirements |
| Whether D.C. suppression statute incorporates foreign jurisdiction law | § 23‑551(b)(1) is not limited to conduct in D.C., so it should be read to require applying Maryland law here | § 23‑542/§ 23‑551 should be read in context; D.C. statute defines lawful intercepts and governs admissibility in D.C. courts | Court held the D.C. statutory scheme does not incorporate other jurisdictions’ consent rules; D.C. requirements control |
| Whether admitting evidence intercepted contrary to another state’s law would be improper | Admission would violate Maryland’s public policy and Mustafa precedent | Forum applies its own evidentiary admissibility rules; allowing foreign law to exclude evidence would frustrate forum’s enforcement interests | Court rejected extraterritorial application of Maryland law; followed principle that forum’s law determines admissibility |
| Whether suppression was required given federal/conflict‑of‑laws principles | N/A (appellant relied on state‑law argument) | Federal and conflict‑of‑laws precedents support forum law determining admissibility when Fourth Amendment and federal law are satisfied | Court affirmed denial of suppression; evidence properly admitted under D.C. law |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyons v. United States, 833 A.2d 481 (D.C. 2003) (appellate standard of review for suppression rulings and deference to trial court fact findings)
- Holloway v. United States, 951 A.2d 59 (D.C. 2008) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Mustafa v. State, 591 A.2d 481 (Md. 1991) (Maryland may limit admissibility of extraterritorial interceptions under Maryland law)
- United States v. Edmond, 718 F. Supp. 988 (D.D.C. 1989) (evidence obtained contrary to another state’s law can be admissible in federal proceedings if lawful under federal law)
- United States v. Pforzheimer, 826 F.2d 200 (2d Cir. 1987) (policy against allowing foreign law to frustrate forum’s law enforcement objectives)
- United States v. Shaffer, 520 F.2d 1369 (3d Cir. 1975) (similar conflict‑of‑laws reasoning regarding admissibility of out‑of‑state interceptions)