Opinion 25-121

September 10, 2025

Digest:  On these facts, a judge may not attend National Night Out Against Crime activities sponsored by local police departments in the judge’s county.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); Opinions 24-55; 18-147; 17-04; 16-85; 13-123; 03-45.

Opinion:

          A full-time judge outside his/her window period asks if he/she may attend National Night Out Against Crime activities sponsored by local police departments in the judge’s county “to build community relations with law enforcement.”  The event includes “presentations of crime prevention materials for adults,” in addition to child-oriented activities, and police leaders “are present to meet and greet members of the community.”  The judge proposes to attend solely as a community member, but acknowledges “the likelihood of being recognized by a law enforcement leader or elected official, if they are present.”

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A judge’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and must not cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality, detract from judicial dignity, or interfere with judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).

          “[A] judge must strive to avoid not only the reality, but also the appearance, that he/she is aligned in interest with law enforcement” (Opinion 13-123).  Applying this principle to extra-judicial activities is necessarily a fact-specific determination.  For example, we have advised that a judge may not attend a human trafficking seminar sponsored solely by law enforcement and focused on effective strategies for prosecution (see Opinion 17-04).  Nor may a judge accept a leadership position with a Boy Scouts Exploring Post that is “administered and mentored by the local sheriff’s office” (Opinion 24-55).  We have also advised that a judge may not participate in the District Attorney’s free athletic/sporting event “to help raise awareness and prevent domestic violence,” where it is “organized and promoted solely by the local District Attorney’s office” (Opinion 18-147).  Of particular note is Opinion 03-45, where a judge asked about the propriety of participating in a “ride along” with police on patrol, which was available to all community members.  As we explained (id.):

the judge should not participate in a “ride along” program with the local police department. Although the program is made available to all public officials and citizens, the judge’s participation would, none the less, violate the judge’s obligation to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 

          Similar principles apply here.  Accordingly, we conclude that the inquiring judge, who is not in his/her window period, may not attend National Night Out Against Crime activities that are solely sponsored by law enforcement.  The judge’s proposal to attend merely “as a member of the community” does not change the analysis (see e.g. Opinion 16-85 [discussing the effect of purported anonymity]).