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 said yes.

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:

• Chapter 487 of the Laws of 1992 added Mount Vernon (the city that prompted the 1984 opinion).
• Chapter 466 of the Laws of 1994 temporarily added Peekskill.
• Chapter 658 of the Laws of 1995 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 pattern is significant. If the 1984 opinion's reading of § 2.10(21)(a) were correct, none of the three amendments would have been necessary. The Legislature's behavior shows it does not think the general clause covers each city's court officers automatically. The AG accepted that signal and concluded that Troy's safer course is to seek its own amendment to § 2.10, rather than relying on a 15-year-old AG opinion that the Legislature appears to have rejected by conduct.

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?

Because court security duties (arrests in the courthouse, transporting prisoners, executing court orders) require a peace officer's legal authority. Without peace officer status, the security personnel would be civilians who cannot perform many of those functions. OCA insisted on peace officer status to make sure the contracting officers could actually do the security job.

What did the 1980 consolidation actually do?

It pulled together every category of peace officer that had been scattered across various statutes (Town Law, Public Officers Law, special acts) into one master list in CPL § 2.10. After 1980, if you wanted a class of enforcement personnel to have peace officer status, the Legislature had to add it to § 2.10. The provision now has 80+ enumerated categories.

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

Because legislative behavior since 1984 contradicts it. The Legislature has been adding individual city court officers to § 2.10 by separate chapter, which is the kind of action you only take if you do not think the general clause already covers them. Reading legislative behavior as a signal about how the statute is being interpreted by the body that wrote it is a standard interpretive move.

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

Lobby for a specific § 2.10 amendment naming the city's uniformed court officers. The path is well-traveled (Mount Vernon, Peekskill, Jamestown). A targeted amendment removes any doubt and lets OCA approve the security contract.

Does this same problem apply to town and village courts?

The opinion is about city court officers specifically. The Office of Court Administration has its own framework for staffing town and village courts, which typically uses local police or sheriff's deputies whose peace officer status is already settled. For uniformed court officers separately employed by the town or village, the same analysis would apply: § 2.10 designation is required.

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