New York bans smart glasses in all courthouses starting July 20

New York state will prohibit smart glasses and other recording-enabled eyewear or headwear from all court facilities beginning Monday (July 20), including in certain Schuyler County offices, a move aimed at preventing secret recordings of proceedings that violate state law.

The statewide ban, announced in a July 1 memo from the New York Unified Court System, applies to more than 1,240 state, county, city, town and village courts. It covers any eyewear or headgear with cameras, microphones or other recording technology, including prescription smart glasses.

People entering court buildings with such devices must surrender them to uniformed court officers for safekeeping. The prohibition extends to everyone, including judges, staff, attorneys, litigants and visitors.

Signs announcing the ban have been posted at courthouses statewide, including in the New York Sixth Judicial District, which includes Schuyler County.

Schuyler County Attorney Steven Getman said the policy will directly affect county operations in Watkins Glen, where various county offices share space with the courthouse and the Sheriff’s Department lobby that houses the centralized arraignment court. All county buildings are also subject to a 2023 local law regulating photography, electronic recording and audio-visual recording in county facilities.

"This ban will require adjustments for our staff and anyone conducting business in our facilities," Getman said. "We share some buildings with the courts, so county employees and visitors to the Sheriff's Department or other offices will need to comply. It may mean additional planning for county proceedings or records access that might otherwise involve technology some now rely on."

The county’s local law, approved by the Schuyler County Legislature in January 2023, was drafted in consultation with the New York State Office of Court Administration. It aims to protect sensitive and confidential information in county facilities while exempting open meetings, courthouse steps, parks and other outdoor public spaces. Violations are classified as misdemeanors, with a permitting process available through the county administrator for authorized recordings.

Getman noted that while the change prioritizes the integrity of proceedings, local officials will work to minimize inconvenience.

"We support measures that protect the fairness and privacy of court processes," he said. "In a small county like Schuyler, where facilities are integrated, we'll coordinate closely with court officers to implement this smoothly and ensure public access isn't unduly restricted."

The ban seeks to enforce New York Civil Rights Law and court rules that already prohibit unauthorized recording in court facilities. Similar restrictions have been enacted in other states.

The rise of consumer smart glasses with discreet recording capabilities has heightened privacy concerns, prompting institutional responses nationwide.

New York’s new law: Police recording duty for certain custodial interrogations

Effective this month, the law in New York State on police recording of certain custodial interrogations has changed.

The new law amends the Criminal Procedure Law creates a recording obligation in certain highly serious felonies, including many Class A-1 offenses, A-2 sex offenses, and B violent homicide and sex offenses.

Under the statute, the recording has to begin with "custody" at a police station or other detention facility (or at same time police must give the person Miranda warnings).

There are ten "good cause" exceptions for non-recording listed in the law. They include malfunctioning equipment, booking questions and "inadvertent error or oversight.”

If police improperly fail to record an interrogation and cannot show "good cause," the statute permits the defense to obtain a jury charge at trial. However, there is no suppression remedy for police failure to comply with the recording obligation. Instead, the law provides that a failure to obey the recording rule can be a "factor" bearing on admissibility, though not the "sole factor."

For more on the new law, click here.