Thomas v. United States, 171 A.3d 151

Appellant photographed a sexual partner (J.P.) sleeping nude without her consent and later sent the photo to others; it subsequently appeared online.
J.P. recognized identifying items in the photo and reported the incident to police after receiving a screenshot.
A detective arranged for J.P. to call appellant from a D.C. police station; the call was recorded with J.P.’s consent and in the detective’s presence.
Appellant was on a train and indicated he was in Maryland during the recorded call.
Appellant was charged with attempted voyeurism; at trial the recording, J.P.’s testimony, and the photograph were admitted and he was convicted.
Appellant moved to suppress the recording arguing Maryland’s two-party consent law should govern because he was located in Maryland when recorded; the trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether D.C. courts must suppress an intercepted interstate call recorded with only one party’s consent because the speaker was in Maryland (a two-party consent jurisdiction)	D.C. suppression statute should be applied in light of Maryland law when the defendant was located in Maryland; thus the recording was unlawfully intercepted and inadmissible	D.C. law governs admissibility in D.C. courts; the recording complied with D.C. one-party-consent statute and is therefore admissible despite the speaker’s physical location in Maryland	Affirmed: D.C. law controls admissibility in D.C. proceedings; the recording was lawful under D.C. statutes and properly admitted

Lyons v. United States, 833 A.2d 481 (D.C. 2003) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Holloway v. United States, 951 A.2d 59 (D.C. 2008) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
Clark Constr. Group, Inc. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 123 A.3d 199 (D.C. 2015) (statutory construction principles)
W.H. v. D.W., 78 A.3d 327 (D.C. 2013) (holistic statutory interpretation)
United States v. Edmond, 718 F. Supp. 988 (D.D.C. 1989) (evidence obtained contrary to another state’s law may be admissible if federal/D.C. requirements met)
United States v. Pforzheimer, 826 F.2d 200 (2d Cir. 1987) (policy against letting foreign law frustrate forum prosecutions)
United States v. Shaffer, 520 F.2d 1369 (3d Cir. 1975) (similar conflict-of-law reasoning)
Mustafa v. State, 591 A.2d 481 (Md. 1991) (Maryland may limit admissibility of out-of-state interceptions under Maryland law)