Can a New York city's uniformed court officers have peace officer status without an amendment to Criminal Procedure Law § 2.10 specifically naming them?

Plain-English summary

The City of Troy had a contract with the Office of Court Administration (OCA) to provide security at the Troy City Court. The city wanted to replace police officers with uniformed court officers, but OCA said the court officers would have to have peace officer status. The Corporation Counsel asked the AG whether Criminal Procedure Law § 2.10 needed to be amended to give Troy court officers that status.

The AG advised Troy to seek a specific amendment to Criminal Procedure Law § 2.10.

The reason is the way the peace officer scheme works. In 1980, Chapter 843 consolidated all peace officer designations into a single master list at Criminal Procedure Law § 2.10. The Law Revision Commission's 1976 report set that as a deliberate goal: the State should be able to look at one place to identify every category of peace officer. After 1980, no category of enforcement officer has peace officer status unless § 2.10 says so.

The wrinkle. § 2.10(21)(a) designates "[u]niformed court officers of the unified court system" as peace officers. NY Const, Art VI, § 1(a) defines the unified court system to include district, town, city, and village courts. In a 1984 opinion to the City of Mount Vernon, the AG had read that combination to mean that uniformed court officers of any city court are peace officers automatically. So if the 1984 reading were still good law, Troy could already qualify its court officers without any new amendment.

But after 1984, the Legislature acted three separate times to specifically add named city court officers to § 2.10:

• L 1992, ch 487 added Mount Vernon (the city that prompted the 1984 opinion).
• L 1994, ch 466 temporarily added Peekskill.
• L 1995, ch 658 added Jamestown.

Each amendment was framed as necessary to clarify ambiguous status. The Assembly sponsor for the Mount Vernon amendment explicitly said the court officers' status "is ambiguous and this legislation is necessary to clarify their status as peace officers."

The AG said those later amendments cast doubt on the earlier opinion's conclusion that city court officers automatically gain peace officer status under the general clause. It advised Troy to seek an amendment.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Why is peace officer status the gating issue for this contract?

OCA told Troy it would accept the city's plan to replace police officers with uniformed court officers only if the proposed officers had peace officer status. The opinion does not list the security duties or discuss civilian powers.

What did the 1980 consolidation actually do?

The AG said a primary purpose of the 1980 amendment was to consolidate peace officer designations in Criminal Procedure Law § 2.10. A class of enforcement officers lacks peace officer status unless it is included in that section.

Why didn't the AG just stand by the 1984 Mount Vernon opinion?

The AG said the later amendments separately listing officers from Mount Vernon, Peekskill, and Jamestown created considerable doubt about the earlier opinion's reading of § 2.10(21)(a).

What is the practical advice for a city in Troy's situation?

The AG advised Troy to seek an amendment to § 2.10 designating its uniformed court officers as peace officers. The opinion does not say whether OCA would then approve the contract.

Does this same problem apply to town and village courts?

The opinion addresses Troy City Court officers. It mentions town and village courts only while quoting the constitutional description of the unified court system; it does not decide how officers serving those courts acquire peace officer status.

Background and statutory framework

Consolidation of peace officer designations. Chapter 843 of the Laws of 1980 consolidated peace officer designations into CPL § 2.10. The Law Revision Commission's 1976 report is the foundational study. After consolidation, only categories listed in § 2.10 have peace officer status.

Unified court system. NY Const, Art VI, § 1(a) establishes the unified court system, which by its terms includes the various trial-level courts (district, town, city, village).

City-specific additions to § 2.10(21). § 2.10(21)(a) covers uniformed court officers of the unified court system generally. § 2.10(21)(e) was added by L 1992, Ch 487 (Mount Vernon). L 1994, Ch 466 added Peekskill temporarily. § 2.10(21)(f) was added by L 1995, Ch 658 (Jamestown). Each addition was sponsored as clarifying ambiguous status.

1984 Mount Vernon opinion. 1984 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 131 read § 2.10(21)(a) and Art VI, § 1(a) together to mean that all uniformed court officers of city courts in the unified system have peace officer status. The 1999 Troy opinion expressly walks back the reach of that earlier opinion.

Citations

• NY Const, Art VI, § 1(a) (definition of unified court system).
• Criminal Procedure Law § 2.10 (master list of peace officers).
• Criminal Procedure Law § 2.10(21)(a) (uniformed court officers of the unified court system).
• L 1980, Ch 843 (consolidation of peace officer designations).
• L 1992, Ch 487 (Mount Vernon uniformed court officers added to § 2.10).
• L 1994, Ch 466 (Peekskill uniformed court officers added to § 2.10).
• L 1995, Ch 658 (Jamestown uniformed court officers added to § 2.10).
• 1984 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 131 (Mount Vernon opinion, walked back by this 1999 opinion).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_99-13_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

NY CONST, ART VI, § 1(a); CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW § 2.10; L 1995, CH 658; L 1994, CH 466; L 1992, CH 487; L 1980, CH 843. The City of Troy should seek an amendment to section 2.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law to designate uniformed court officers of the Troy City Court as peace officers. May 5, 1999 Patrick T. Morphy, Esq. Corporation Counsel City of Troy City Hall Troy, NY 12180

Informal Opinion
No. 99-13

Dear Mr. Morphy:
You have stated that the City of Troy has a contract with the Office of Court Administration (OCA) to provide security in the Troy City Court. The City would like to replace the police officers now providing security with uniformed court officers. OCA, however, has informed officials of the City that in order for it to accept the City's plan, the uniformed court officers must have peace officer status. Your question is whether section 2.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law must be amended specifically to designate uniformed court officers of the City of Troy as peace officers. In 1980, the Criminal Procedure Law was amended in relation to the designation and powers of peace officers. L 1980, ch 843. Chapter 843 was the culmination of many years of study, particularly the Law Revision Commission's 1976 report to the Legislature. See, Recommendation of the Law Revision Commission to the 1976 Legislature, McKinney's 1976 Session Laws, pp 22502282, 1976 Legislative Document No. 65(1). A primary purpose of Chapter 843 was to consolidate all peace officer designations into section 2.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Thus, a class of enforcement officers will not have peace officer status unless they are included within section 2.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law. You have noted that in a 1984 opinion of this office (1984 Op Atty Gen [Inf] 131) to the City of Mount Vernon, we expressed the view that uniformed court attendants of Mount Vernon's City Court are peace officers under Criminal Procedure Law
§ 2.10(21)(a). That provision designates "[u]niformed court officers of the unified court system" as peace officers. In reaching this conclusion, we cited NY Const, Art VI, § 1(a),

2
providing that "[t]he unified court system for the state shall also include the district, town, city, and village courts . . .." We, therefore, opined in 1984 that the existing Criminal Procedure Law made all uniformed court officers of the Unified Court System, including those of Mount Vernon's City Court, peace officers. Subsequent amendments to section 2.10, however, have created considerable doubt as to the continued viability of our conclusion. Following the issuance of our 1984 opinion, section 2.10(21) was amended through the addition of paragraph (e), which expressly lists uniformed court officers of the City of Mount Vernon as peace officers. The Assembly sponsor explained that although it had been the custom of Mount Vernon uniformed court officers to exercise peace officer powers, the status of these court officers "is ambiguous and this legislation is necessary to clarify their status as peace officers." Bill Jacket, L 1992, ch 487, July 14, 1992 letter from Gregory Young, Assembly Sponsor to Counsel to the Governor. Section 2.10 subsequently was amended in 1994 temporarily to add uniformed court officers of the City of Peekskill to the list of peace officers (L 1994, ch 466) and in 1995 uniformed court officers of the City of Jamestown were added to the peace officer designations in section 2.10(21) (paragraph [f] added by L 1995, ch 658). While our 1984 opinion was plausible when written, the subsequent amendments to section 2.10 have cast doubt on its conclusion that uniformed court officers of city courts automatically obtain peace officer status by virtue of Criminal Procedure Law § 2.10(21)(a). Taking into consideration the clear legislative purpose to designate all categories of peace officers within section 2.10 and the specific addition through three separate chapters of uniformed court officers of three city courts, it is our view that the City of Troy should seek an amendment to section 2.10 to designate uniformed court officers of the Troy City Court as peace officers. The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of State government. This perforce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office. Very truly yours,

JAMES D. COLE
Assistant Attorney General
In Charge of Opinions