The New York Taxi Workers Alliance asked a federal judge today to block New York City from requiring taxicabs to carry new technology, including G.P.S. devices, video screens and credit and debit card readers.
Judge Richard M. Berman, who heard oral arguments in the afternoon at Federal District Court in Manhattan, said that he intended to issue a written decision on Friday on the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order blocking the city from imposing the new technology, which has been a sore point for drivers. Many drivers walked off the job on Sept. 5 and 6 in a strike that was intended to pressure the Taxi and Limousine Commission from implementing the new requirement. The city has refused to budge.
Malcolm A. Goldstein, a lawyer for the taxi drivers, argued that the G.P.S. devices possibly violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
“The G.P.S. system introduces a new level of injury to the taxi driver,” Mr. Goldstein said. “It goes far beyond any reasonable expectation of privacy.”
He also argued that the technology would be costly, imposing a financial hardship for drivers. He also expressed concern that drivers would be monitored when they are off-duty. There is “no need for anyone to know where the cab is when the driver is off duty,” Mr. Goldstein said.
Paula Van Meter, a lawyer for the city, vigorously disagreed. She argued that it was simply not reasonable to expect privacy in a vehicle on a public road.
She also argued that the G.P.S. devices would transmit information to computers run by four approved contractors that are supplying the technology. Under the contracts with those companies, the Taxi and Limousine Commission would not have any information about cabs’ whereabouts when drivers are off-duty.
Joseph Sanscrainte, a lawyer who specializes in privacy matters at the law firm Bryan Cave and is not involved in the case, said he believed the city had the stronger legal argument. Consent to the G.P.S. system is implied by the drivers’ agreement to take part in the highly regulated taxicab industry, he said.
“New York courts have already determined that there’s a reduced expectation of privacy on the part of the drivers,” Mr. Sanscrainte said, citing a 1993 case in which a state court found that “any person who displays an official shield has a reduced expectation of privacy.”
If Judge Berman decides to grant a restraining order, it would be a huge blow for the city and a victory for the drivers. Having gone on strike without achieving concessions by the city, the New York Taxi Workers Alliance may find that the lawsuit is their last hope for blocking the new requirements from taking effect on Oct. 1.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Star 05.22.10 at 8:45 pm
How would thier privacy be affected?who would have time to watch the hundres of cab drivers’ locations on a daily basis. If they have nothing to hide, they shouldnt be worried
Bull Halsey Cab 05.23.10 at 10:52 am
Star, here is excellent answer to you opinion: “That I have nothing to hide is no reason to give up my freedom.” This written by brilliant newspaper essayist. It says should I let government inside my house and look around when they wish, or when I become a thorn in someone’s hide by pointing out corruption, and if I say NO, it means I have something to hide? Ridiculous. Here is what you wrote: “How would thier privacy be affected?who would have time to watch the hundres of cab drivers’ locations on a daily basis. If they HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, they shouldnt be worried.”
Patton Taxi 05.23.10 at 10:56 am
When I say, “That I have nothing to hide is no reason to give up my freedom.” Don’t dare ask me what do I have to hide.? Don’t try to threaten and manipulate me that way. Don’t try to say that “if I have nothing to hide,” I should let corrupt money-mongers start stomping on me.
Dershowitz Cabbie 05.23.10 at 11:28 am
Judge Richard M. Berman might have something different to say if GPS watchers were put in all judges’ private vehicles. After all, says “Berman” what right to privacy can someone expect in a vehicle on the highway.” A rather obtuse idea, because the Alliance did not object to people passing looking in the window, but rather a giant Octopus computer watching where everyone was going, seeing who had the highest fares, invading the self-employed businessman.”
And then there is the old claim, driving a cab is a privilege, getting the license is a privilege. However, as long as one individual can own one medallion and drive it (not a renter) it is HIS BUSINESS he was allowed by the city in buying that medallion and driving it. To invade the cash register is just one thing, the other is to track and compute every single movement. Perhaps this medallion owner managed to make a contract with someone for lucrative airport trips, etc. The computer points this out, and next thing the PROPRIETARY BUSINESS INFORMATION of the private driver is used for competitive purposes; he shows up to get his client the next day, and there are 25 vehicles for hire in front of the house or business. A self-employed businessman has a right to proprietary information without a corrupt parasite tycoon flying in the window.
I doubt Judge Berman considered the single medallion owner driver, but considered ‘just a cabbie showing up to rent.’ However, there is a big suprise in store when the legal experts for the NYTWA Alliance hit upon the concept that in the auction by the city of medallion pairs, a pair had to be purchased, and any single bidder of a pair was required to drive one of those cabs a full shift every week. However, this bidder, once owning 2 cabs, is NOW not a privilege but a RIGHT. He was sold a business by the city, he owns it. This is a fine distinction, but an important one. Could you imagine, say, going into a liquor store, saying you are going to take credit cards, like it or not, and this outfit (friend of the Mayor let’s posit) also says we will require to know every transaction cash or credit, we will have to have a picture of all your customers, we will have to know who is buying. All this proprietary information just because the liquor store has a license by the city to exit? And we wonder, looking at the whole credit card and GPS set-up, why Judge Richard M. Berman didn’t understand that this was all about MONEY, credit card fees, kick-backs to fleets, and 13,400 seats targeted to ADVERTISING REVENUES, no one has yet verified or seen the figures? All cabbies know that the GPS watch feature was a PERK given to TLC in order to get their massive advertising venture in the door, and claimed advertising REQUIRED to know where the cabbie was! If you believe that, you’ll believe anything. We note in the US amicus curiae brief written by the United States in the Judge Crotty decision appeal, said that only “35%” of NYC yellow cabs are owned by fleet garages. This must be a big mistake of fact. It would say that private drivers make up 8,710 cabs, and fleets only own 4,690. Let yellow cabbies be the JUDGE! It is not clear in my book, that a city authorized businessman, driving and owning one medallion, can have advertising forced in his taxi, or credit card acceptance which comes with a HUGE LOSS.
As for fleet rental garages also being given a PERK ($ cut of credit card fees) in order to let this massive advertising revenue generator into their multiple owned cab vehicles without raising a stink, the rationale being bandied around is that these percentage cuts for garages PAID FOR THE EQUIPMENT. Meter and back-seat slider probably at a high end cost about $600 to $800 with a $150 a year airtime fee; this equipment lasts for years (if you don’t keep monkeying with it and you don’t add the advertising features). SO, Judge Berman couldn’t see all this? To euphemistically call the advertising screen a Passenger Information Monitor, so the rider could put in a tip – when the National Conference of Weights and Measures, under US Dept of Commerce, says no one but a driver can enter anything into a meter, and New York State does subscribe to those National Conference of Weights and Measures standards, how do we have an advertising screen with illegal features, like tips, going to the meter? This is because the greedy credit card middlemen want to be sure to get a fee on the tip, that it is not paid cash. Simply put, it was a money-making scheme that the TLC allowed to happen, with the blessing of Mayor Bloomberg, approved by Judge Berman. It is easy to see, this was and is a city to city targeting of the lucrative advertising revenues generated. The perks were GPS watchers of self-employed businessmen who stood and stand to gain illegally. Every city where these advertising parasites take over the taxi business, the scheme is just a little different. Look at Bermuda where all taxis are owned by private drivers. They found a different scheme there. Can you imagine GPS on an island 22 sq miles?
Dershowitz Cabbie 05.23.10 at 11:33 am
Official Shield? Ask a jury. A driver’s license issued by state? A city liquor store permit? A city cabbie license, a city medallion ownership? Licensed taxi and driver by the city is not AN OFFICIAL SHIELD. Here’s what Mr. Joseph Sanscrainte, privacy lawyer at Bryan Cave said: “New York courts have already determined that there’s a reduced expectation of privacy on the part of the drivers,” Mr. Sanscrainte said, citing a 1993 case in which a state court found that “any person who displays an OFFICIAL SHIELD has a reduced expectation of privacy.”
Patton Taxi 05.23.10 at 11:38 am
Cabbies, what means when U start getting a lot of flak? Means you’re right over the target. Hooray!
Get Down Driver 05.23.10 at 11:42 am
The TLC should be investigated by independent agency, from top to bottom! The way they regulate the taxi and limo industry is sickening. Do limos have GPS tracking device, and huge TV inside? Why not, there is more space! Does it serve any good for the riding public, other than distracting them, and they wonder why they forget their stuff in the cab? Does the Bloomberg Media address that? Only when they recover some famous guy’s music instruments, and that is a headline news – how easy and nice, because our GPS high-tech devices in every cab! Give me a break! And then what about all those lost wallets, apt. keys, digital or video cameras in Lincolns? And all those 3 times a year cab inspection, and why so many cabs look like never was inspected! It is in the news, of course not! Do the TLC focus on issues, how the fleet garages doing business with cabdrivers, and those greedy dispatchers how conduct their job? It is a circus! And the limo industry like big elites, without medallions or expenses, but they are in the taxi circus too!