N.Y.Co.: NYC taxicab industry is heavily regulated, including GPS on cabs

The taxicab industry in NYC is heavily regulated, and it is constitutionally permissible for the TLC to require GPS and fare data be continually transmitted when there is a fare in the cab. This has already been decided in federal cases in NYC, and they are followed. Also, there is no tracking when the cab is off-duty. Matter of Carniol v New York City Taxi & Limousine Comm’n., 2013 NY Slip Op 23358, 42 Misc. 3d 199, 975 N.Y.S.2d 842 (N.Y. Co. 2013):

It has long been recognized that the TLC is vested with a broad grant of authority to promulgate and implement a regulatory program for the taxicab industry (Matter of New York City Comm. for Taxi Safety v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 256 AD2d 136, 137 [1st Dept. 1998] ). The 2004 amendment to the TLC’s rules and regulations which require the installation of equipment that would, inter alia, electronically transmit vehicle and trip information, “specifically requires the transmission of the taxicab’s and driver’s license numbers, the number of passengers, the starting and ending times and locations of the trip, the metered fare for the trip, and the trip distance” (Buliga, 2007 WL 4547738 at *1; Alexandre v New York City Taxi and Limousine Com’n, 2007 WL 2826952 [SD NY 2007]). Individuals who engage in work in a closely regulated industry “have reason to expect intrusions upon their privacy insofar as it pertains to their work” (Buliga 2007 WL 4547738 at *2 [internal quotation marks omitted] citing Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 657 [1995]; see also Statharos v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 198 F. 3d 317, 325 [2d Cir 1999]). Here, the TTS system was installed with the knowledge of the taxicab owners and all taxicab drivers are required to follow TLC regulations which mandate the use of the TTS system (see Alexandre 2007 WL 2826952 at *4). “Adults who choose to participate in a heavily regulated industry, such as the taxicab industry, have a diminished expectation of privacy, particularly in information related to the goals of the industry regulation” (Buliga 2007 WL 4547738 at *2)

However, even if petitioner could show that he has a legitimate expectation of privacy in trip data gathered by the GPS device, which he cannot, his fourth amendment claim of privacy would be outweighed by the legitimate governmental interests articulated by the TLC (Alexandre 2007 WL 2826952 at *10; United States v Miller, 430 F.3d 93, 97 [2d Cir 2005] [“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness”]). “Even in the context of a search authorized by statute or regulation, the reasonableness of the search and seizure is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests” (Buliga 2007 WL 4547738 at *3, citing Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S.602, 619 [1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The balancing test to be applied where, as here, the petitioner complains of a warrantless search in violation of his privacy rights is: “(1) the nature of the privacy interest involved; (2) the character and degree of the governmental intrusion; and (3) the nature and immediacy of the government’s needs …” (United States v. Amerson, 483 F.3d 73, 83-84 [2d Cir 2007]).

In this case, Carniol’s privacy interest in the trip data generated by the GPS device is minimal and the government’s intrusion is also minimal. “[I]t does not involve a physical intrusion into Caniol’s body or home” (Bulgia 2007 4547738 at *3) and it does not collect data regarding Carniol’s whereabouts when he is off-duty. On the other hand, the government interest in improving taxi customer service and TLC’s ability to regulate it by using modern methods to promote passenger and driver safety, is substantial.