(202) 549-2374
Unlawful Entry in D.C.
It is against the law in Washington, D.C. to enter or to remain on property against the will of the lawful occupant/owner. This is the criminal offense of unlawful entry.
The offense is a misdemeanor under D.C. Code § 22-3302. Depending on whether the property is private or public, a conviction can carry up to 180 days or six months in jail, a fine, or both.
If you have been arrested or charged with unlawful entry in Washington, D.C., contact D.C. criminal defense lawyer Jamison Koehler at 202-549-2374 or jkoehler@koehlerlaw.net.
Short answer: Unlawful entry generally means entering or remaining on private or public property without lawful authority and against the will of the person legally entitled to control that property. Whether the government can prove notice, authority, intent, and the validity of any barring order often determines the outcome.
What is unlawful entry in D.C.?
Unlawful entry occurs when a person, without lawful authority:
- Enters or attempts to enter qualifying property against the will of its lawful occupant or the person lawfully in charge; or
- Remains on the property without lawful authority and refuses to leave after an authorized person directs the person to do so.
The statute applies to private dwellings, buildings, other private property, public buildings, and other public property.
A “private dwelling” can include a privately owned house, apartment, condominium, cooperative housing, public housing, or another building used as living quarters.
Is unlawful entry different from burglary?
Yes. Unlawful entry and burglary are separate offenses.
Unlawful entry focuses on whether the person had legal authority or permission to enter or remain on the property. Burglary generally requires proof that the person entered a building or dwelling with the intent to commit a crime inside.
Because burglary requires additional proof and carries more serious potential consequences, an unlawful-entry charge should not automatically be described as burglary.
What must prosecutors prove?
To obtain an unlawful-entry conviction, the government generally must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
- The defendant entered, attempted to enter, or remained on the property;
- The defendant lacked lawful authority to do so;
- The entry or continued presence was against the will of the lawful occupant or person lawfully in charge; and
- The defendant knew or should have known that entering or remaining was prohibited.
The precise requirements depend on the type of property and the circumstances of the alleged offense.
Additional requirements involving public property
Public property presents additional constitutional and due-process concerns. An instruction to leave public property generally must come from someone with authority, and the restriction must have an independent legal justification based on an established policy, rule, regulation, or other lawful basis.
This issue can be particularly important when a case involves political activity, demonstrations, government buildings, sidewalks, parks, or other places ordinarily open to the public.
Will I go to jail for unlawful entry?
Jail is legally possible, but it is not inevitable.
A person with little or no criminal history may receive probation, diversion, or another non-incarceration outcome. No lawyer can promise a particular result, however. Sentencing depends on the facts of the case, the defendant’s background, and the judge’s assessment.
Is diversion available to first-time offenders?
It may be.
Some people charged with unlawful entry—particularly people with limited or no prior criminal history—may qualify for a diversion program such as:
- Stet docket: The prosecution places the case on hold for a specified period. If the defendant satisfies the conditions and is not rearrested, the charge may later be dismissed.
- Deferred prosecution agreement: The defendant completes specified requirements, which may include community service. The government may dismiss the charge after successful completion.
Diversion is not automatic. Eligibility and terms depend on prosecutorial policy, the defendant’s history, and the circumstances of the case.
Before accepting any diversion offer, a defendant should understand its conditions and its effect on public court and arrest records.
Can an unlawful-entry record be expunged or sealed?
Possibly. The answer depends on factors that include:
- Whether the case ended in dismissal, acquittal, or conviction;
- Whether the person claims actual innocence;
- How much time has passed;
- The person’s other criminal history;
- Whether the record qualifies for expungement, sealing, or another form of relief; and
- Which version of the D.C. record-clearing law applies.
D.C.’s criminal-record statutes have changed substantially. A person should obtain advice based on the current law and the specific disposition of the case rather than relying on a general waiting period.
Relevant provisions include D.C. Code § 16-802, governing certain automatic expungements, and D.C. Code § 16-803, governing expungement by motion.
What defenses may apply to an unlawful-entry charge?
Potential defenses depend on the evidence. Common issues include the following.
The defendant had permission or lawful authority
A person who was invited by a lawful tenant, resident, owner, or other authorized person may have had legal authority to be present.
In Odumn v. United States, the D.C. Court of Appeals addressed a tenant’s ability to invite people onto property for lawful purposes.
The person issuing the order lacked authority
The government must establish that the person who prohibited entry or directed the defendant to leave had lawful authority to do so.
The defendant did not receive adequate notice
The prosecution may need to prove that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that entry or continued presence was prohibited. Notice can sometimes be oral; the government does not necessarily need to prove that the defendant personally received a physical copy of a barring notice.
The barring order was invalid
A charge may be challenged when the underlying barring notice or exclusion order was legally defective.
In Winston v. United States, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed an unlawful-entry conviction where the government failed to establish facts necessary to show that the barring order properly prohibited the defendant’s presence.
A resident or tenant had a legal right to be present
Residents generally cannot be barred from areas they have a legal right to access under a lease or tenancy. The D.C. Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Foster v. United States.
The government cannot establish that the property was private
The classification and boundaries of the property may be disputed. The prosecution must prove the facts necessary to bring the property within the statute.
The defendant did not refuse a valid instruction to leave
When a case is based on remaining on property, the evidence may not establish that an authorized person made a clear demand to leave or that the defendant refused that demand.
Constitutional protections apply
Cases involving public property may raise First Amendment, due-process, or assembly issues. However, a sincere personal or political belief does not, by itself, create a defense to unlawful entry.
What evidence matters in an unlawful-entry case?
Relevant evidence may include:
- Surveillance or body-camera footage;
- Photographs and maps of the property;
- Signs, fences, doors, or other access restrictions;
- A written barring notice;
- Lease or tenancy documents;
- Text messages, emails, or other evidence of permission;
- Testimony from residents, owners, security personnel, or police;
- The exact words used in an instruction to leave;
- Evidence identifying who controlled the property; and
- Policies or regulations governing access to public property.
A defense lawyer can compare this evidence with the allegations in the police report and the legal elements the government must prove.
How can I obtain information about the allegations?
Defense counsel ordinarily receives police reports, body-camera recordings, witness information, and other discovery through the criminal case.
Before the initial hearing, a defendant may also be able to request an abbreviated police report, often called a PD-251, from the Metropolitan Police Department. A public incident report may be available through an MPD district station.
It can help to provide the criminal complaint number, or CCN, shown on case-related paperwork.
Do I need a lawyer for an unlawful-entry charge?
A defendant has the right to represent himself or herself, but an unlawful-entry case can involve questions about property rights, notice, authority, constitutional protections, diversion, and criminal-record consequences.
A defense lawyer can:
- Evaluate whether the government can prove every element;
- Challenge an invalid barring notice or instruction to leave;
- Obtain and examine discovery;
- Identify witnesses and evidence showing permission;
- Negotiate for diversion or dismissal;
- Prepare the case for trial; and
- Explain possible record-clearing options.
If a defendant is financially unable to hire counsel and qualifies for appointed representation, the court may appoint a lawyer.
Speak with a D.C. unlawful-entry lawyer
Jamison Koehler represents people charged with unlawful entry and other criminal offenses in the District of Columbia.
This page provides general information about District of Columbia law. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Attorney reviewer: Jamison Koehler
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Primary authority: D.C. Code § 22-3302
Last reviewed by lawyer: September 16, 2026