VIDEO RECORDING OF PUBLIC MEETINGS

Public access to open meetings is guaranteed under New Jersey’s Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). Some municipalities have adopted ordinances regulating how citizens may record their local government in action. While many of these rules were written with good intentions, some may conflict with state law and with the public’s right to open government.

We are reviewing local ordinances, comparing them against OPMA and New Jersey case law, and have sent formal letters to the Department of Community Affairs – Division of Local Government Services (DLGS) and the New Jersey League of Municipalities (NJLM) requesting review and clarification. The goal is to ensure that open meetings remain truly open and that all residents can observe, record, and share public proceedings freely and responsibly.

Concerns for Salem County:

1. Notice Requirements

Some ordinances require citizens to give written or verbal notice to the Clerk thirty minutes or one hour before recording. These provisions constitute prior restraints on constitutional rights. The Supreme Court in Tarus held that citizens do not need advance permission to record public meetings.

2. Setup Time

Rules requiring equipment to be set up ten minutes before a meeting begins arbitrarily exclude late-arriving citizens from exercising their rights. Only narrowly tailored rules addressing actual disruption are constitutionally permissible.

3. Location of Equipment

Requiring all cameras to be placed at the rear of the room or in Clerk-assigned spots restricts access and creates viewpoint control. Location limits are valid only when tied directly to obstruction or safety concerns.

4. Number of Devices

Limiting citizens to one recording device at a time is arbitrary. Multiple devices do not inherently create greater disruption and such a restriction lacks rational justification.

5. Equipment Rules

Reasonable limits on lights or noise are acceptable. However, total bans on plug-in power or other modern equipment are overly broad. Courts require reasonable accommodation when safety issues can be addressed, such as securing cords.

6. Citizen Conduct

Prohibiting quiet movement, narration, or leaving early while recording sweeps in harmless conduct and grants excessive discretion to officials. Under Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (394 U.S. 147, 1969), such unbounded power violates constitutional protections.

7. Removing Equipment

Requiring citizens to keep equipment in place until adjournment is unjustified. Quietly removing a camera does not inherently disrupt proceedings and cannot be prohibited outright.

8. Recorder Types

Limiting devices to “mini-cassette” recorders is outdated and discriminatory. Modern devices such as smartphones and digital cameras are recognized by OPRA and case law as legitimate tools of public access.

9. Attorney-Client Conversations

Protecting privileged communications is appropriate, but bans on “any conversation” between officials and their attorney are overbroad. These discussions should occur in closed session under the law, not by limiting lawful public recordings.

10. Authority to Stop Recording

Allowing the Mayor or presiding officer to stop recording at any time grants unfettered discretion that is unconstitutional under Shuttlesworth. Only actual disruption justifies suspension of recording.

11. Official Record Status

Clarifying that citizen recordings are not official transcripts is appropriate and consistent with law.

12. Ceremonial Exceptions

Allowing rules to be “relaxed” for ceremonial events undermines the claim that restrictions are necessary to maintain order. If rules can be waived at will, they are not essential and may be unconstitutional overbreadth.

These findings demonstrate that the law already protects the public’s right to record. Municipalities simply need to ensure their ordinances reflect that protection, without new state involvement or overregulation.

Open public meetings belong to the public. Let’s make sure they remain that way.

What You Can Do

• Review your town’s ordinances regarding recording public meetings.

• Learn your rights under the Open Public Meetings Act (N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq.) and Tarus v. Pine Hill (189 N.J. 497).

• Attend meetings and record responsibly and respectfully.

• Share your experiences or concerns with Salem County Preservation and Development or contact the New Jersey League of Municipalities directly for clarification.

• Encourage your municipality to update or revise any policies that may conflict with state law.

Links to Check Out

1. Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497 (2007)
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1979093/tarus-v-borough-of-pine-hill/

– Citizens have a common law right to videotape public meetings of governmental bodies

– Local governments may not prohibit recording absent a specific, demonstrable disruption.

2. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/shuttlesworth-v-birmingham/

– Shows officials do not have unfettered discretion over public expression.

– Ordinances restricting recording or speech must have clear, objective standards.

3. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/781/

– Time, place, and manner restrictions are valid only if they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.

4. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep408/usrep408104/usrep408104.pdf

– Shows the difference between legitimate and overbroad or vague restrictions.

5. Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/460/37

– Access to government spaces (like meetings) cannot be restricted arbitrarily.

6. New York Open Meetings Cases (for parallel precedent)

People v. Ystueta, 99 Misc.2d 1105 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979) https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591492a6add7b0493459c0b3#:~:text=Based%20upon%20the%20sound%20reasoning,Public%20Officers%20Law%20§%20105)

– Recognized right to record public meetings under New York’s Open Meetings Law.

Csorny v. Shoreham-Wading River Central School District, 305 A.D.2d 83 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b7feadd7b0493478291e

– Reinforced that public bodies cannot prohibit non-disruptive recording.