What political activity can a New York city police officer take part in: running for office, joining party caucuses, donating to campaigns?

Plain-English summary

The City of Oswego (a "second class city" under State classification) asked the AG four interlocking questions about what political activity its police officers are allowed to engage in. The answers, in order:

Yes, an Oswego police officer can run for and serve as a county legislator. Election Law § 17-110 does not bar candidacy. The opinion cites a State Board of Elections opinion and Jones v Seneca Bd. of Elections on that point. County Law § 411 does not bar this combination. Under People ex rel. Ryan v Green, the AG found no subordination or foreseeable conflict between the two positions.

Yes, that police officer / county legislator can participate in his county legislative caucus. Public Officers Law § 108(2)(b) defines political caucus as a private meeting of legislative-body members of the same political party. If you're a county legislator and a party member, you're automatically eligible to attend the caucus. Election Law § 17-110 is not implicated.

The donation question splits: yes to making donations, no to receiving them. Election Law § 17-110(3) makes it a misdemeanor for any police officer to solicit, collect, or receive political contributions. But the statute does not prohibit a police officer from making contributions. The State Board of Elections' 1983 Formal Opinion No. 5 confirmed this asymmetry.

Yes, the officer can attend county committee meetings of a political party. Before 1983, § 17-110(3) flatly prohibited police-officer party-committee membership. The 1983 amendment deleted that prohibition. So attendance and membership are now allowed, subject to the still-in-force restrictions on misuse of police power and on receiving money.

The opinion adds a key caveat at the end: it addresses only State law. Local laws, codes of ethics, and collective bargaining agreements may impose additional restrictions. Second Class Cities Law § 144 has a sharp consequence: an Oswego police officer who violates § 17-110 in any respect must be dismissed from office.

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

What does Election Law § 17-110 actually forbid?

Three specific things: (1) using official police powers to aid, reward, or punish a political organization, citizen, or officer or member of a police force because of political views or affiliation; (2) soliciting, collecting, or receiving political money; (3) (pre-1983) being a member of a political committee, but this prohibition was repealed.

Why the special Oswego-only consequence?

The question presented concerned an officer covered by Second Class Cities Law § 144. The AG quoted that law as requiring dismissal when a police department member violates Election Law § 17-110.

May the officer make or receive political contributions?

The AG said a police officer may make political contributions but may not solicit, collect, or receive money for a political fund, club, association, society, or committee. The opinion does not give separate guidance for an officer's own campaign or its treasurer.

What about handing out flyers, attending fundraisers, putting up signs?

The opinion does not address flyers, fundraisers, or signs. It notes that local laws, ethics codes, and collective bargaining agreements were outside its review.

Does the compatibility analysis allow this combination in every county?

The AG concluded that a city police officer could serve in the legislature of the county containing the city. It did not analyze a sheriff's deputy or every possible city-county arrangement.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion explains that a 1983 amendment removed the prohibition on police officers joining political committees from Election Law § 17-110(3).

The AG quoted Second Class Cities Law § 144 as requiring dismissal of a police department member who violates Election Law § 17-110. It did not analyze how other cities are classified.

County Law § 411 is the dual-office bar for elected county officers. It prohibits certain combinations (judge / surrogate / district attorney / sheriff / county clerk / any elective county officer) from holding another elective county or town office or city supervisor.

The opinion quotes Public Officers Law § 108(2)(b)'s definition of a political caucus as a private meeting of legislators of the same party. It concludes that the officer may participate in a county legislative caucus without violating Election Law § 17-110.

Citations

• County Law § 411 (restrictions on dual office holding for certain elective county officers).
• Election Law § 17-110 (police officer political activity restrictions; subdivisions 1, 2, 3).
• Public Officers Law § 108 (definition of political caucus; § 108(2)(b)).
• Second Class Cities Law § 144 (automatic dismissal for § 17-110 violation by police officer).
• People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY 295 (1874) (compatibility leading case).
• Jones v Seneca Bd. of Elections, 83 AD2d 982 (4th Dept 1981) (§ 17-110 does not bar police officer candidacy).
• NY State Bd. of Elections, 1983 Formal Opinion No. 5 (police officer may make political contributions but not solicit/collect/receive).
• NY State Bd. of Elections, 1983 Formal Opinion No. 8 (§ 17-110 does not preclude candidacy).
• NY State Bd. of Elections, 1983 Formal Opinion No. 9 (deletion of political-committee membership prohibition).
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 98-38 (county elected office not barred by § 411 to city police officer).
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 94-18 (village trustee / town police officer compatible).
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 90-7 (town board / village police chief incompatible; distinguished).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_99-35_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

Opn. No. 99-35
COUNTY LAW § 411; ELECTION LAW § 17-110; PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, ART 7, § 108; SECOND CLASS CITIES § 144. The positions of county legislator and policeman of a city located within the county are compatible. A policeman may be a member of a county legislative caucus or a county political committee. A policeman may make political donations, but may not solicit, collect or receive political donations. October 25, 1999 P. Michael Shanley, Esq. City Attorney City of Oswego Oswego City Hall 13 West Oneida Street Oswego, New York 13126

Informal Opinion
No. 99-35

Dear Mr. Shanley:
You have inquired whether a police officer covered under Second Class Cities Law § 144 and New York State Election Law § 17-110 is permitted to:

1. Run for and hold the office of County Legislator;
2. Be a member of a political caucus as defined by Public Officers Law § 108;
3. Contribute money directly to a political party or accept contributions for a campaign; and
4. Attend the County Committee meetings of a political party.

The Election Law places certain limitations on the political activities of police officers. Subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 17-110 provide that it is a misdemeanor for "any officer or member of any police force" to use official powers to aid, reward or punish a political organization, citizen or officer or member of a police force because of political views or affiliation. Subdivision 3 provides that "any officer or member of any police force" who "[s]olicits, collects or receives any money for, any political fund, club, association, society or committee, is guilty of a misdemeanor." Further, Second Class Cities Law § 144 states that "any officer or member of the police department who violates any provision of section 17-110 of the election law shall be dismissed from office." Election Law § 17-110 does not preclude the candidacy and election of a police officer to a public office. See, NY State Bd. Of Elections, 1983 Formal Opinion No. 8; Jones v Seneca Bd. Of Elections, 83 AD2d 982 (4th Dept 1981). The question remains whether the positions of city police officer and county legislator are incompatible under other statutory provisions or common law. We conclude the positions are compatible. First, we have found no statute prohibiting the concurrent holding of these two offices. Section 411 of the County Law imposes some restrictions on dual office holding by elected county officers but does not bar county officers from holding the position of city police officer. It provides that: No county judge, family court judge, surrogate, district attorney, sheriff, county clerk or any elective county officer shall be eligible to hold at the same time another elective county or town office, or that of city supervisor. Thus, the State Legislature has not prohibited an individual from simultaneously holding an elective county office and the position of city police officer. See, Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 98-38. Second, the two offices are not incompatible under common law principles. The leading case on compatibility of office is People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY 295 (1874). In that case the Court of Appeals held that two offices are incompatible if one is subordinate to the other or if there is an inherent inconsistency between the two offices. Neither of these barriers exists here. County legislators comprise the legislative body of the county. City police officers are responsible for law enforcement within the city. One position is, therefore, not subordinate to the other. There also is no foreseeable conflict between the duties of the two positions. See, Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 94-18 (positions of village trustee and town police officer are compatible). Therefore, we conclude that the positions of county legislator and city police officer are compatible. We also conclude that a city police officer serving as a county legislator may participate in a political caucus. You refer to the definition of political caucus set forth in the "Open Meetings Law." Public Officers Law § 108(2)(b). Under that provision, a political caucus is a private meeting of members of the senate or assembly of the state of New York, or of the legislative body of a county, city, town or village, who are members or adherents of the same political party, without regard to (i) the subject matter under discussion, including discussions of public business, (ii) the majority or minority status of such political . . . caucuses or (iii) whether such . . . caucuses invite staff or guests to participate in their deliberations. . . . If a member of the county legislature is a member of a political party, that person will, perforce, be a member of a political caucus. Because a city police officer may serve as a county legislator, it follows that he or she may be a member of a political caucus within the county legislature. Further, participation of a city police officer in a political caucus does not violate section 17-110 of the Election Law. Furthermore, we conclude that police officers may make, but may not solicit, collect or receive political contributions. Election Law § 17-110 makes it unlawful for police officers to solicit, collect or receive any money for any political fund, club, association, society or committee. It does not prohibit police officers from making political contributions. See, NY State Bd. Of Elections, 1983 Formal Opinion No. 5. Finally, we conclude that under State law a city police officer is not prohibited from attending county committee meetings of any political party. Prior to 1983, section 17-110(3) prohibited police officers from joining or being a member of any political committee. In 1983, this section was amended specifically to delete that prohibition. See, NY State Bd. Of Elections, 1983 Formal Opinion No. 9. Therefore, under State law a police officer is not prohibited from attending county committee meetings of any particular political party, provided that he does not otherwise violate the terms of the Election Law. It should be noted that, while this opinion has reached certain conclusions under State law, it has not considered the provisions of any local laws or codes of ethics, or any collective bargaining agreements, which may apply.

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, WILLIAM E. STORRS Assistant Solicitor General

1 Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 90-7, which concluded that the positions of town board member and chief of the police department of a village within the town are incompatible, is distinguishable. The incompatibility arose there from the fact that the police chief prosecuted certain cases in town court, whose budget he determined as a town board member.