Notice: Tltis opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
A tlantic' and il-Iarylaml Reporters. Users are requested to noti)jt the C/erk of the
C`oart of any formal errors so that r.‘orrection.s‘ may be made before the bound
volumes go to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. IS-CM-lBSO
DAVH)THOMASNAHHLLANL
V.
UNI'I‘I'_-D S'l'.»\'i 125, Al>ri:i.l__i:lz.
Appea| t"rom the Superior Coun
ol`the District ot`Columbia
(DVl\/l-l$Ol-l$)
(l"lon. lose M. Lopez‘ l\/lotions .ludge)
(l~lon. Robert E. l\/lorin, 'I`ria| .ludge)
(Argued April 20_ 2017 Deeided October ll 20 | 7)
Ffetc/ier P. T/iompson i`or appellant.
l"alinda Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom C'/miming D.
P/n'/h'p.s', United States Attomey at the time the briet` was filed, and E/i`:abei/i
Trosinan, C'/n'isei/en R. A'o/}L and il’Iarisa S. ll/Jst, Assistant United States
Attorneys1 were on the briet`, f`or appellee
Before l\/lL`Ll;l'Slj, i-'issoeiate .]nrige, and WASIIIN(';'|'(`)N and i"/\RRIEl_I__, Senior
Jncige.s.
\l\//\SItIi~~‘ti'l't_)i\Iq Sen:'or Jm/ge: David Thomas (““appellant") was found guilty
ot` attempted voyeurism t`or photographing his sexual partner while she slept nude
next to him and without her eonsent. Appeliant Sent the photograph to an unknown
l\.)
number ot` third parties and the photograph made its way online. The victim
notified law enforcement, and a recorded phone conversation was arranged
between the victim and appellant, with only the victim`s consent and knowledge
that the conversation was being recorded On appeal, appellant argues that the
audio recording was unlawful under Maryland law where he was located during its
reeording. and therel`ore. the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
We aff`irm.
ln April ol` 2013, appellant and the victim. .I.P.._ met while they were both
students at Howard University. The pair briefly dated and became sexually
intimate on one occasion in J.P.`s bedroom Unbel