June 10, 2009


The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions.  The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence.


            We are in receipt of your request for an advisory opinion regarding the legal authority  “to carry a digital voice recorder, concealed on my person in an unobtrusive manner”, at public meetings of the Board of Directors of the Westmere Fire Department. In addition to the comments and legal analysis provided in an opinion to you on this same date, we offer the following.

            Neither the Open Meetings Law nor any other statute of which we are aware deals with the use of audio or video recording devices at open meetings of public bodies.  There are, however, several judicial decisions concerning the use of those devices at open meetings.  In our view, the decisions consistently apply certain principles.  One is that a public body has the ability to adopt reasonable rules concerning its proceedings.  The other involves whether the use of the equipment would be disruptive.

            By way of background, until 1978, there had been but one judicial determination regarding the use of the tape recorders at meetings of public bodies, such as boards of volunteer fire departments.  The only case on the subject was Davidson v. Common Council of the City of White Plains, 244 NYS 2d 385, which was decided in 1963.  In short, the court in Davidson found that the presence of a tape recorder might detract from the deliberative process.  Therefore, it was held that a public body could adopt rules generally prohibiting the use of tape recorders at open meetings.

            Notwithstanding Davidson and subsequent to the enactment of the Open Meetings Law, the Committee on Open Government advised that the use of tape recorders should not be prohibited in situations in which the devices are unobtrusive, for the presence of such devices would not detract from the deliberative process.  In the Committee's view, a rule prohibiting the use of unobtrusive tape recording devices would not be reasonable if the presence of such devices would not detract from the deliberative process.

            This contention was initially confirmed in a decision rendered in 1979.  That decision arose when two individuals sought to bring their tape recorders at a meeting of a school board in Suffolk County.  The school board refused permission and in fact complained to local law enforcement authorities who arrested the two individuals.  In determining the issues, the court in People v. Ystueta, 418 NYS 2d 508, cited the Davidson decision, but found that the Davidson case:

"was decided in 1963, some fifteen (15) years before the legislative passage of the 'Open Meetings Law', and before the widespread use of hand held cassette recorders which can be operated by individuals without interference with public proceedings or the legislative process.  While this court has had the advantage of hindsight, it would have required great foresight on the part of the court in Davidson to foresee the opening of many legislative halls and courtrooms to television cameras and the news media, in general.  Much has happened over the past two decades to alter the manner in which governments and their agencies conduct their public business.  The need today appears to be truth in government and the restoration of public confidence and not 'to prevent star chamber proceedings'...In the wake of Watergate and its aftermath, the prevention of star chamber proceedings does not appear to be lofty enough an ideal for a legislative body; and the legislature seems to have recognized as much when it passed the Open Meetings Law, embodying principles which in 1963 was the dream of a few, and unthinkable by the majority."

            Later, the Appellate Division annulled a resolution adopted by a board of education prohibiting the use of tape recorders at its meetings and directed the board to permit the public to tape record public meetings of the board [Mitchell v. Board of Education of Garden City School District, 113 AD 2d 924 (1985)].  In so holding, the Court stated that:

"While Education Law sec. 1709(1) authorizes a board of education to adopt by-laws and rules for its government and operations, this authority is not unbridled.  Irrational and unreasonable rules will not be sanctioned.  Moreover, Public Officers Law sec.  107(1) specifically provides that 'the court shall have the power, in its discretion, upon good cause shown, to declare any action *** taken in violation of [the Open Meetings Law], void in whole or in part.'  Because we find that a prohibition against the use of unobtrusive recording goal of a fully informed citizenry, we accordingly affirm the judgement annulling the resolution of the respondent board of education" (id. at 925).

            Further, we believe that the comments of members of the public, as well as public officials, may be recorded.  As stated by the court in Mitchell.

"[t]hose who attend such meetings, who decide to freely speak out and voice their opinions, fully realize that their comments and remarks are being made in a public forum.  The argument that members of the public should be protected from the use of their words, and that they have some sort of privacy interest in their own comments, is therefore wholly specious" (id.).

            In view of the judicial determination rendered by the Appellate Division, we believe that any person may tape record open meetings of public bodies, so long as tape recording is carried out unobtrusively and in a manner that does not detract from the deliberative process.

            With respect to a requirement that the recording be obvious, we note that the Court in Mitchell referred to "the unsupervised recording of public comment" (id.).  In our view, the term "unsupervised" indicates that no permission or advance notice is required in order to record a meeting.  We recommend that the recorder not be concealed, as a courtesy.  However, it is our view that there is no prohibition concerning concealment.  Again, so long as a recording device is used in an unobtrusive manner, based on the case law referenced above, it our opinion that a public body cannot prohibit its use by means of policy or rule. 

            On behalf of the Committee on Open Government, we hope that this is helpful to you. 



                                                                                                Camille S. Jobin-Davis
                                                                                                Assistant Director



cc: Board of Directors