It is lawful for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic 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 rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communications service to the public may not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. There are also exceptions relating to law enforcement officers acting during their regular duty. If the officer has stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation he may intercept an oral communication. If the officer is a party to the communication and identifies himself as an officer to the other parties prior to the interception and informs all other parties to the communication of the interception at the beginning of the communication and the oral interception is part of a video taping. Maryland's statute precludes admitting evidence which, though validly intercepted under DC law, violates Maryland's law.
Civil action is authorized.
Exceptions include a business use exception as in Maryland. Civil action is authorized. It is a misdemeanor to trespass on private property to subject a person to eavesdropping or surveillance. However, according to Navarra v. Bache Halsey 510 F Supp.