Opinion 25-57(B)

March 27, 2025

Please Note: This opinion has been amended in part by Opinion 25-143, which advises: “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.” See Opinion 25-143 for more details.

Facts/Issue:  A town justice asks about his/her ethical obligations now that the town has installed video-only cameras in the multipurpose room that also serves as the judge’s courtroom.

Discussion:   We have advised that a town justice whose town installs video-only cameras in the courtroom should object in writing and notify an appropriate administrative or supervising judge of the town’s installation of the cameras in the courtroom.  Recognizing that town and village justice courtrooms may be designated for other purposes when court is not in session, we noted that “one ethically permissible alternative to removing the cameras entirely would be to provide the judge with a simple and effective method to shut down the courtroom cameras, and ensure that they remain off, while court is in session.”  Whether to propose such an alternative is left to the discretion of the judge, in consultation with court administrators.

Conclusion:  A town justice must object in writing to the town’s installation of cameras in the courtroom and notify an appropriate administrative or supervising judge.  Where the courtroom is a multipurpose room, the judge has discretion to consult with court administrators about providing the judge a method of keeping the cameras off during court sessions, instead of removing them.

Authorities:  Opinion 24-67.