The Colorado Supreme Court’s ethics panel clarified on Tuesday that municipal judges are permitted to receive police reports, accident reports, drivers’ histories and criminal histories directly from prosecutors without it amounting to misconduct.

The Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board, which consists of judges, lawyers and a non-attorney, reasoned that state law permits or requires judges to consider certain information when setting bond or sentencing defendants. Therefore, receiving materials from the prosecution directly is not an issue.

“As a matter of prudence,” the board continued in its Aug. 12 opinion, “a judge who receives such documents from either a law enforcement agency or the prosecution should give copies of those documents to the defendant’s counsel.”

The advisory panel noted its assessment did not touch on the duties prosecutors have in complying with their own ethical obligations.

The question of how municipal judges should approach materials from prosecutors arose after an unnamed presiding municipal judge reported that the city attorney from her jurisdiction intended to cease providing certain information to the municipal court.

“Specifically, the City Attorney has concluded that it is likely improper under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct for that office to provide the court with information favorable to the prosecution — including police reports, accident reports, (drivers’) histories, criminal histories, and the like — because that would constitute improper ex parte communication,” the panel described.

“Ex parte” communication occurs when a judge speaks with only some of the parties in a case. The general prohibition is intended to ensure everyone with an interest in a proceeding is able to be heard.

The unnamed presiding judge told the advisory panel that prosecutors typically gave her court certain investigation-related documents to use for setting bond or imposing sentences. Although the panel agreed the scenario did amount to ex parte communication, it concluded state law explicitly authorizes judges to consider the types of information at issue in their decision-making.

“Generally, as long as both parties are furnished with copies of the documents,” the board wrote, “and given a reasonable time to respond to the information contained therein, a judge can consider the contents of those documents without engaging in prohibited ex parte communications.”

“I think it’s an impactful opinion. I think there are so few opinions that speak to municipal court procedure and ethics,” said Elizabeth D. Cadiz, chief public defender for Aurora, who did not believe the opinion stemmed from her jurisdiction. “I think what it gets to is that a judge shouldn’t be setting a bond based only on their review of records provided by the city without the presence of counsel or without the dissemination of the same information to the defendant.”

Board Chair Alec Rothrock did not take part in the advisory opinion.