The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion addressing the ethical considerations for town justices utilizing a third-party vendor’s software platform to manage village parking tickets. The opinion, numbered 25-153, focuses on the extent of access and control the village maintains over the system, the involvement of the vendor, and the certification of month-end reports.
The inquiry stems from a situation where town justices provide court services to villages within the town and have jurisdiction over village parking tickets. A village contracts with a for-profit company to manage these tickets through its parking enforcement software. Village police upload copies of parking tickets, including photos of alleged violations, to the vendor’s system. The court downloads and processes these tickets. Defendants can pay fines online through the vendor or in person at the court. The vendor collects online payments and remits them to the court, while the court records in-person payments through the vendor’s software.
The committee addressed whether the court can operate under a structure where the village retains administrative control over parking tickets within the vendor’s platform, even after the tickets are under the court’s control. The committee cited the New York State Comptroller’s stance that a town justice is personally responsible for the court’s received funds and must have direct supervision over their handling. The committee found that the village’s ability to access, change, or control ticket dispositions and reports, even after the court has taken control, creates an appearance of impropriety and undermines judicial independence. The committee advised that judges should not participate in the software platform if the village maintains such control. However, limiting the village to “read-only” access would resolve this issue.
The committee also considered whether judges and court staff could receive training from the for-profit company and use the software platform. Referencing prior opinions, the committee distinguished the situation from cases where vendors were involved in prosecuting or adjudicating violations. In this case, the court presides over trials if a defendant contests a ticket, and the prosecutor is responsible for introducing admissible evidence. The committee concluded that accessing the system to download tickets, access payment information, or run reports is permissible, as the training program aims to familiarize court personnel with the record-keeping system and does not seek to maximize enforcement or enhance conviction rates.
Finally, the committee addressed the issue of certifying month-end reports when the court has observed reporting errors generated by the software. The committee stated that a judge must not certify the “truth and completeness” of a report they know or believe to be incorrect. The committee did not address what actions a judge should take after declining to certify a report, noting that those are legal or administrative issues. However, the committee stated that certifying an amended report after correcting errors would not raise ethical concerns.
