Opinion 25-186

December 18, 2025

Digest:  On these facts, where a village has contracted with a third-party vendor to manage alleged parking ticket violations in the vendor’s software platform/program and the vendor has provided certain assurances in light of Opinion 25-153:
(1) A judge may participate in the program if (a) the vendor represents that the program precludes non-court personnel from modifying the ticket data and (b) the vendor is required to notify the court if there is any alteration of this “read only” access or if the “read only” access provision is violated by any non-court personnel.
(2) The judge may decline to participate if the village does not take reasonable steps to ensure that non-court personnel are formally prohibited from modifying the ticket data by resolution, local law, or agreement.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.1; 100.2(A); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(C)(1)-(2); Opinion 25-153.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judges have jurisdiction over village parking tickets, and the village has contracted with a third-party vendor to manage alleged parking ticket violations in the vendor’s software platform.  Opinion 25-153 advises that a judge may not participate in the parking enforcement software platform “as long as the village maintains administrative control over parking tickets in the vendor’s platform, even after the tickets have been downloaded to the control of the justice court,” but that “limiting the village to ‘read only’ access, so that non-court personnel cannot even inadvertently interfere with any accounting, auditing or reconciliation processes that may need to be undertaken, will satisfy this impediment.”   After learning of this advice, the village provided the inquiring judges with a message from the vendor.  In this message, the vendor “confirms” that the village “has a user designation of ‘Administrator Village’ which does not allow for any modification of alleged parking ticket violations - it provides read-only access to those alleged violations.”  The judges ask some follow-up questions in light of the vendor’s message.

          A judge must uphold the judiciary’s integrity, impartiality, and independence (see 22 NYCRR 100.1; 100.2[A]; [“An ‘independent’ judiciary is one free of outside influences or control.”]).  In performing judicial duties, a judge must “diligently discharge” his/her administrative responsibilities (22 NYCRR 100.3[C][1]) and must “require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge” (22 NYCRR 100.3[C][2]).

          In Opinion 25-153, we concluded that it creates an appearance of impropriety and may undermine judicial independence for a local government or its officials to have the power to “at any time access, change or control the dispositions and reports of dispositions of tickets in the court’s control.”  Accordingly, from an ethical perspective, we advised that judges should not participate in a parking enforcement software platform where the village maintains administrative control over parking tickets even after the tickets have been downloaded to the control of the justice court.  However, we advised that if other government personnel were restricted to “read only” access, so that non-court personnel cannot even inadvertently interfere with any accounting, auditing or reconciliation processes that may need to be undertaken, there would be no ethical impediment to judicial participation in the program.  We turn now to the inquiring judges’ follow-up questions:

1. May the judges rely on the vendor’s assurances?

          The judges may rely on the vendor’s assurance that “read only” access to the software platform prevents any non-court personnel from modifying or deleting the ticket data (including the tickets themselves, information about their disposition, payments received, and other related information), but should take reasonable steps to ascertain or ensure that such restricted access will be permanent.

2. Must the judges require notice of changes to the read-only access?

          Because the risk of tampering or modification of ticket data without judicial approval could create the appearance of impropriety in the future and because the judges are relying on the vendor’s representation that “read only” access prevents modification of the ticket data, the judges should insist that the vendor be required to notify the court if any alteration of the “read only” access rule occurs in the future or if the “read only” access provision is violated by any non-court personnel.

3. If the judges are not satisfied with the vendor’s assurances, may they instead insist, as a condition of utilizing the software program, that the local government formally limit (for example by written agreement or formal resolution) all non-court personnel’s ability to modify to the ticket records?

          Because the risk of tampering or modification of ticket data without judicial approval could create the appearance of impropriety and compromise the judicial process, the judges have an ethical obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that non-court personnel cannot modify the ticket data.  Assuming they are not satisfied with the vendor’s assurances, the judges may ethically decline to participate in the software program if the local government declines to enact measures, through resolution, local law, or agreement, that will formally prohibit non-court personnel from modifying the ticket data.