Can a Mississippi city require apartment complexes and multi-unit housing developments to install security cameras and turn over the recordings to police?
Plain-English summary
The City of Greenwood, Mississippi, was considering an ordinance requiring large apartment complexes and multi-unit family housing developments to install security camera systems, maintain recordings for a specified period, and presumably make those recordings available to the city. The stated purposes: deter crime, provide public safety, and help solve criminal activity in the city.
The city's attorney asked the AG two related questions, both essentially asking whether Mississippi's "Home Rule" statute (§ 21-17-5) and police regulations statute (§ 21-19-15(1)) authorized this ordinance.
The AG said no, on two layered grounds:
Ground 1: Statutory authority is missing. Section 21-17-5 gives municipalities broad management authority over their affairs and property, but only to the extent the resulting orders are "not inconsistent with the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, the Mississippi Code of 1972, or any other statute or law of the State of Mississippi." Section 21-19-15(1) gives municipalities police-regulation authority "necessary for the preservation of good order and peace of the municipality." Neither statute expressly authorizes a city to require private property owners to install surveillance equipment on their property.
Ground 2: Constitutional concerns. Mandating security cameras on private property raises serious Fourth Amendment and Mississippi Constitution Article III § 23 concerns. The AG cited:
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), holding that physical intrusion on private property to obtain information is a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.
- City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015), striking down a municipal code requiring hotel operators to turn over guest information to police on demand.
- Crook v. City of Madison, 168 So. 3d 930 (Miss. 2015), articulating the purpose of Fourth Amendment protections.
- Okhuysen v. City of Starkville, 333 So. 3d 573 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022), holding that "a municipal ordinance cannot authorize a search that the Mississippi Constitution prohibits."
Reading the home rule statute together with these constitutional limitations: a city cannot use ordinance authority to compel private parties to install government-accessible surveillance equipment on their own property. That is not within Mississippi's grant of municipal authority.
What this means for you
If you're a Mississippi municipal attorney drafting public-safety ordinances
This opinion is a clean barrier to ordinances that would compel private property owners to install surveillance for government access. What you can do:
- Voluntary programs. Encourage apartment owners to install cameras with city-approved specifications. Provide grants or tax incentives.
- Building permit conditions. Require security plans (including cameras) as a condition of new construction or major renovation, where building authority can be exercised. The legal hooks here are different than ordinance compulsion of existing properties.
- Crime-free housing programs. Offer voluntary programs where landlords adopt certain practices in exchange for partnership benefits (faster police response, training, etc.).
- Subpoena-based access. Police can subpoena recordings from privately-owned camera systems in connection with specific investigations, with appropriate process.
- Post-incident cooperation. Require landlords to cooperate with investigations of crimes on their properties. This is different from prospective surveillance mandates.
What you cannot do:
- Require by ordinance that private property owners install cameras.
- Require by ordinance that recordings be retained for a specified period and made available to the city on demand.
- Use other regulatory power (zoning, business licensing) as a backdoor to require what direct ordinance authority cannot.
If you're an apartment complex owner
If a city tries to enforce a mandatory security camera ordinance against you, this AG opinion is your starting point. The ordinance is not authorized under Mississippi law and likely violates the Fourth Amendment. Consult counsel about challenging the ordinance.
You retain control over your own surveillance decisions. Voluntary installation of cameras for crime deterrence and incident response is your call. If you do install cameras, you control the recordings unless served with valid legal process. Build your retention and access policies before being asked to share footage.
If you're a city alderman or council member
Public-safety pressure is real. Apartment complexes are sometimes flashpoints for crime. But mandatory security camera ordinances are not the path. Voluntary partnerships and incentive programs achieve much of the deterrence benefit without the constitutional problems. Public-safety departments can be tasked with relationship-building with apartment owners; that produces better results than ordinance mandates.
If you're a tenant in a Mississippi apartment
Your privacy rights in your own unit are robust. Common-area surveillance is generally permitted (with notice). The AG opinion confirms that the city cannot force your landlord to install cameras and turn over footage to police. If you have specific privacy concerns about surveillance in your building, talk to your landlord and read your lease.
If you're a civil liberties litigator
This opinion is useful authority for challenging a similar Mississippi ordinance. Note the cited cases as a coordinated framework: Patel on government information demands, Jones on physical intrusion, Crook on Fourth Amendment purposes, Okhuysen on municipal ordinances unable to authorize unconstitutional searches.
Common questions
Q: Can a city require commercial buildings (not apartments) to install cameras?
A: The same legal framework applies. The opinion does not distinguish residential from commercial property. Mandatory installation on any private property faces the same statutory and constitutional concerns.
Q: What about cameras in public housing?
A: Public housing is owned by a public housing authority (a governmental body), so the constitutional analysis is different. The PHA can install cameras in its own properties subject to its own constitutional and statutory constraints. This opinion specifically addresses privately-owned apartment complexes.
Q: Can a city require security cameras as a condition of getting a business license?
A: Doing indirectly what cannot be done directly is generally disfavored. A city could face the same statutory and constitutional challenges in a license-condition context, especially if the requirement is functionally equivalent to a mandate. Tailored approaches focused on specific high-risk businesses (e.g., late-night convenience stores in certain areas) might be defensible if narrowly drawn.
Q: Is the Fourth Amendment really triggered when private parties record their own property?
A: The constitutional concern is government-mandated surveillance on private property, with required disclosure to government. Patel held that requiring records to be turned over without judicial review violated the Fourth Amendment. The mandatory-disclosure piece is what the AG focused on.
Q: What about cameras on apartment complex exteriors or parking lots?
A: Voluntary installation is generally fine, with appropriate signage. The AG's analysis is about the city requiring installation, not about voluntary surveillance.
Q: Can a city subpoena recordings from privately-owned cameras for a specific investigation?
A: Yes, with valid legal process. A grand jury subpoena, a search warrant, or other appropriate legal process can compel disclosure of specific footage in connection with a specific investigation. That is fundamentally different from prospective mandatory surveillance.
Background and statutory framework
Mississippi's Home Rule statute, § 21-17-5, gives municipalities broad authority over municipal affairs, but explicitly subjects that authority to consistency with the state constitution, the Mississippi Code, and other state laws.
Section 21-19-15(1) authorizes municipal police regulations for "the preservation of good order and peace of the municipality." This is the typical "police power" of local government. But police power is not unlimited; it is constrained by constitutional rights and by statutory boundaries.
The Fourth Amendment ("[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated") applies to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Mississippi Constitution Article III § 23 has parallel language.
The relevant federal cases:
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012): Government's installation of a GPS tracker on a vehicle was a "search" under the Fourth Amendment because it physically intruded on private property to obtain information.
- City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015): A municipal code requiring hotel operators to provide police with guest information on demand violated the Fourth Amendment because it failed to provide pre-compliance review.
The Mississippi cases:
- Crook v. City of Madison, 168 So. 3d 930 (Miss. 2015): Articulating the Fourth Amendment's purpose as safeguarding privacy and security against arbitrary government intrusion.
- Okhuysen v. City of Starkville, 333 So. 3d 573 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022): Municipal ordinances cannot authorize searches the Mississippi Constitution prohibits. Search validity must be determined by Section 23 and Mississippi Supreme Court decisions interpreting it, not by reference to municipal ordinances.
Reading these together, the AG concluded that the proposed ordinance was outside Mississippi's grant of municipal authority. Section 21-17-5's "consistent with state law" limitation is the operative restriction.
Citations and references
Statutes and constitutional provisions:
- Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25 (AG opinion authority)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 21-17-5 (Mississippi Home Rule)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 21-17-5(1)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 21-19-15(1) (municipal police regulations)
- Miss. Const. art. III, § 23 (search and seizure protection)
- U.S. Const. amend. IV
Cases:
- City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409, 419 (2015)
- Crook v. City of Madison, 168 So. 3d 930, 935 (Miss. 2015)
- Okhuysen v. City of Starkville, 333 So. 3d 573, 582 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404-05 (2012)
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/H.BrockJr.-May-18-2023-City-Ordinance-Requiring-Security-Camera-Systems-at-Apartment-Complexes-and-Multi-Unit-Family-Devel.pdf
Original opinion text
May 18, 2023
H. Donald Brock, Jr., Esq.
Attorney, City of Greenwood
Post Office Box 941
Greenwood, Mississippi 38935-0941
Re: City Ordinance Requiring Security Camera Systems at Apartment Complexes and Multi-Unit Family Developments
Dear Mr. Brock:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.
Questions Presented
-
Under Mississippi law, and specifically pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 21-17-5, is the city of Greenwood ("City") authorized to require the installation of security camera systems in large apartment complexes or multi-unit family developments to promote the public welfare, provide for the safety and comfort of the citizens of Greenwood, and to prevent or solve criminal activity within the City?
-
If the governing authorities of the City determine there is an active and earnest interest to protect the public, provide safety, and solve criminal activity, is the City empowered to curb and restrain criminal activity by enacting ordinances requiring the installation of security camera systems, to maintain and keep recordings for a period of days, and to establish penalties for violation of said ordinance for apartment complexes and residential multi-unit family developments?
Brief Response
-
It is the opinion of this office that the City-mandated security camera system about which you ask is not authorized under Mississippi law.
-
Mississippi law does not authorize the City to enact ordinances requiring the installation of security camera systems or to maintain and keep security camera recordings for a certain amount of time.
Applicable Law and Discussion
Official opinions of the Attorney General are limited to prospective questions of state law. Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25. While this office does not, by way of official opinion, interpret federal law, we find it necessary in this particular instance to examine certain federal law in order to resolve your questions. Any portion of this opinion referencing federal law is for informational purposes only.
Section 21-17-5, the "Home Rule" statute, provides, in pertinent part:
(1) The governing authorities of every municipality of this state shall have the care, management and control of the municipal affairs and its property and finances. In addition to those powers granted by specific provisions of general law, the governing authorities of municipalities shall have the power to adopt any orders, resolutions or ordinances with respect to such municipal affairs, property and finances which are not inconsistent with the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, the Mississippi Code of 1972, or any other statute or law of the State of Mississippi, and shall likewise have the power to alter, modify and repeal such orders, resolutions or ordinances.
Section 21-19-15(1) also provides: "The governing authorities of municipalities shall have the power to make all needful police regulations necessary for the preservation of good order and peace of the municipality and to prevent injury to, destruction of, or interference with public or private property." While the statutes appear to give municipalities broad authority in crafting regulations and ordinances to manage municipal affairs and keep order, nothing in the plain language of the statutes expressly authorizes the City to require owners of private property to install security camera systems on their private property or to maintain recordings from those security camera systems and provide them to the City upon request. Instead, the municipal authority to adopt such resolutions and ordinances is limited by the requirement that such resolutions and ordinances be consistent "with the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, the Mississippi Code of 1972, or any other statute or law of the State of Mississippi. . . ." Miss. Code Ann. § 21-17-5(1).
Paramount to the issue of government-mandated security cameras on private property is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. CONST. amend. IV. The Mississippi Constitution's corresponding section states: "The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, and possessions, from unreasonable seizure or search; and no warrant shall be issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, specially designating the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized." MISS. CONST. art. III, § 23. The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that the purpose behind the Fourth Amendment "is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Crook v. City of Madison, 168 So. 3d 930, 935 (Miss. 2015) (citation omitted). Installing security cameras on private property may raise serious constitutional issues. Physical intrusion on private property by the government for the purpose of obtaining information is without doubt a "'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. . . ." United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404-05 (2012) (holding that the Government's placement of a GPS tracking device on an individual's personal vehicle to track the vehicle's movements constituted an unlawful search).
In addition to placing security camera systems on private property, the City also desires to monitor and retain the recorded footage obtained from the security camera systems. This also may raise serious constitutional issues regarding government's access to and retention of personal information. See City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409, 419 (2015) (holding that a municipal code provision requiring hotel operators to provide police officers with specified information concerning guests upon demand violated the Fourth Amendment since it failed to provide hotel operators an opportunity for pre-compliance review).
The plain reading of the statute fails to authorize the City to mandate by ordinance that private property owners install and maintain security camera systems and make any recorded footage available to the City for a specified length of time. Again, any municipal resolution or ordinance must be consistent with the Mississippi Constitution and the laws of this state. Miss. Code Ann. § 21-17-5(1). "[A] municipal ordinance cannot authorize a search that the Mississippi Constitution prohibits." Okhuysen v. City of Starkville, 333 So. 3d 573, 582 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022). "The validity of a search must be determined based on Section 23 of the Constitution and Mississippi Supreme Court decisions interpreting it, not by reference to municipal ordinances." Okhuysen, 333 So. 3d at 582.
Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that the City-mandated security camera system about which you ask is not authorized under Mississippi law.
If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Gregory Alston
Gregory Alston
Special Assistant Attorney General