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

Appellant (David Thomas) secretly photographed his sexual partner, J.P., sleeping nude and staged identifying items in the photo; she did not consent.
The photo was later distributed online; J.P. reported it to police after receiving a screenshot.
Police arranged a recorded phone call from a D.C. police station; J.P. (in D.C.) consented to recording; appellant was on a train and identified himself as being in Maryland during the call.
The recorded call included appellant admitting he took and sent the photo; the recording was used at trial along with the photograph and testimony.
Appellant moved to suppress the recording, arguing Maryland law (requiring two-party consent) should govern because he was in Maryland when the call was intercepted; the trial court denied suppression and convicted him of attempted voyeurism.
On appeal the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed, holding District of Columbia interception/admissibility law applies and the recording was lawfully obtained under D.C. law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Maryland two-party-consent law governs admissibility of a recorded interstate call when appellant was in Maryland during the call	Appellant: D.C. suppression statute (§23-551(b)(1)) is not limited to D.C. law and thus Maryland’s stricter admissibility rule should apply	Government: Forum law (D.C.) controls admissibility; the recording satisfied D.C. interception statute (§23-542) so it was admissible	Court: D.C. law governs admissibility; recording lawful under D.C. statute and suppression was properly denied
Whether evidence obtained in violation of another state’s law must be excluded in D.C. proceedings	Appellant: Because the intercept occurred while he was in Maryland, Maryland’s exclusionary rule should bar the evidence	Government: Admissibility is determined by forum law; admitting evidence lawfully obtained under D.C. law does not allow Maryland to frustrate D.C. prosecutions	Court: Forum’s law governs; evidence admissible when it complies with D.C. statutory requirements

Lyons v. United States, 833 A.2d 481 (D.C. 2003) (standard of review on suppression appeals: facts deferred to trial court; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
Holloway v. United States, 951 A.2d 59 (D.C. 2008) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Clark Constr. Grp., Inc. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 123 A.3d 199 (D.C. 2015) (statutory intent found in the statute’s language)
W.H. v. D.W., 78 A.3d 327 (D.C. 2013) (interpretation is holistic; consider statutory scheme)
United States v. Edmond, 718 F. Supp. 988 (D.D.C. 1989) (evidence obtained contrary to another state’s law may be admissible if compliant with federal/forum law)
United States v. Pforzheimer, 826 F.2d 200 (2d Cir. 1987) (policy reasons for forum law governing admissibility)
United States v. Shaffer, 520 F.2d 1369 (3d Cir. 1975) (similar reasoning on forum control over admissibility)
Mustafa v. State, 591 A.2d 481 (Md. 1991) (Maryland may exclude extra-territorially intercepted communications unless they meet Maryland’s standards)