Washington D.C. Public Official Secrecy Violation Law

A public official secrecy violation occurs when a government employee, or former employee, intentionally discloses confidential information obtained through their official capacity to unauthorized individuals. This could include intelligence, personnel data, classified operations, or any information deemed confidential under District or federal law.

Such violations undermine the integrity of governmental operations and may involve local statutes such as D.C. Code § 1–1162.23 (misuse of government resources) or federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 1905 (disclosure of confidential information).

1. Subject Requirement: Only individuals with a current or prior official duty within government can be prosecuted under this law. Citizens without official roles do not fall under its scope.
2. Protected Information: The leaked content must be explicitly or implicitly protected by law. This includes but is not limited to personnel files, security protocols, sealed investigation materials, or sensitive data acquired through public service.
3. Intent: The disclosure must be intentional. Accidental mentions or internal errors without intent to share information with outsiders may not meet the threshold.

Depending on the statute violated, offenders may face:

• Up to 2 years of imprisonment under general federal standards (18 U.S.C. § 1905)
• Fines or dismissal under District-specific administrative rules (D.C. Personnel Manual, Chapter 16)
• Loss of security clearance and disqualification from future public employment

Additional civil consequences such as termination or demotion are common, as outlined under the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978.

If facing a secrecy violation allegation, the following steps are essential:

• Determine the Classification: Was the disclosed information genuinely confidential? Many documents are sensitive but not protected under law.
• Evaluate Intent: Did the accused act deliberately or by mistake? The burden lies in proving willful intent.
• Contextual Defense: If the disclosure was part of whistleblower activity protected by D.C. or federal whistleblower protection laws, this may exempt the act from punishment.

In borderline cases, the accused may argue that the disclosed information was already publicly available or that the release was unintentional and occurred during performance of good-faith duties.

Responding promptly with a documented rationale is critical. If accused:

• Collect evidence showing the information was accessible by the public or shared with permission
• Prepare a legal memo clarifying the non-sensitive nature of the disclosed content
• Submit documentation of intent and purpose, including emails or instruction records from supervisors

If disciplinary proceedings begin, administrative hearings before the Office of Employee Appeals (OEA) or the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings may be required. Legal counsel is highly recommended in such cases due to the career-impacting consequences.