Opinion 25-143
November 6, 2025
Digest: A town or village justice who would like a video-only camera in the courtroom for security purposes must obtain approval from the Chief Administrator of the Courts or his/her designee under Part 29. A judge need not go through the empty formality of registering an “objection” to a security camera while seeking such administrative permission.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 29.1(a); 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(C)(1); Opinions 25-57(B); 24-67; 18-156.
Opinion:
The inquiring town or village justice asks if he/she may “permit the use of video-only security cameras in our courtroom.” The judge explains that the security cameras are needed “as a safety measure” because the public entrance to the courtroom is relatively isolated and unsecure, and the court clerks work there alone when court is not in session.[1] The inquirer, his/her co-judge, and their court clerks have no objection to the presence of these cameras, or to the possibility that the cameras will be monitored in police department’s control room, provided they are strictly for safety and security.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). A judge must “respect and comply with the law” (see id.) and “should cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business” (22 NYCRR 100.3[C][1]).
As this appears to be the first inquiry we have received from a town or village justice who affirmatively welcomes video-only security cameras in his/her courtroom, we take the opportunity to refine our prior guidance. We understand that the Chief Administrator of the Courts has developed a formal process for approval of security cameras in justice court courtrooms, which is intended to address appropriate legal limitations and any technical requirements.[2] Accordingly, in our view, the sole ethics issue presented here is that the inquiring justice must obtain approval from the Chief Administrator of the Courts or his/her designee under Part 29.
We further conclude that a town or village justice need not go through the empty formality of registering an “objection” to a video-only security camera in the courtroom while seeking administrative permission under Part 29.
Opinions 18-156, 24-67, and 25-57(B) are amended to the extent inconsistent with the present opinion.
[1] While the courtroom here is used exclusively for court purposes, in other municipalities it may be a shared multipurpose room. On the facts presented, the distinction is immaterial.
[2] For example, we understand that court administrators confirm that cameras are not pointing at the jury box or otherwise inappropriately placed and that the judge has the ability to turn them off where required by law (cf. Opinions 25-57[B]; 24-67).