Court Refuses Cab Law Review
W A S H I N G T O N, Dec. 4, 2000 -- The Supreme Court today stayed out of disputesover policies in New York City and Boston that allowedpolice to stop taxicabs as a way to protect cab drivers.
A New York appeals court had ruled that the NYPD’s specialTaxi-Livery Task Force was too prone to violate passengers’ privacyrights. On the other hand, a federal appeals court ruled that adifferent policy in Boston did not violate passengers’ rights.
The Supreme Court declined to review both rulings.
Justice Department lawyers filed papers in the Boston case,saying it differed significantly from the New York case. The Bostonpolicy was conducted with the drivers’ consent and advance notice to passengers, government lawyers said. The stops in the New York case were “markedly more intrusive,” the lawyers added.
Too Much Discretion in N.Y.?The New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruledlast December that the NYPD gave officers too much discretion tostop taxis carrying passengers when they had no reason to suspectany crime was afoot.
The task force was created in 1992 to address the high number ofviolent crimes against drivers of cabs serving high-crimeneighborhoods. Forty-five cab drivers were murdered in New YorkCity in 1992, and there were 3,675 robberies of cab drivers thatyear.
Plainclothes officers in unmarked cars stopped taxis in certainneighborhoods, questioning the drivers about their safety whilewatching the passengers’ reactions. Officers were told to stop cabs in a certain sequence, for example every third occupied taxi theysaw.
Police stops of two cabs were challenged separately by a man andyouth who were arrested and charged with cocaine-connected crimes.The state Court of Appeals threw out their convictions afterfinding the stops unlawful.
In the Boston case, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruledthat the city’s Taxi Inspection Program for Safety was validbecause cab company owners voluntarily participated and gave theirconsent to the police stops.
Boston’s ‘Modest Intrusion’Since 1996, owners who agree to participate are given decals tostick to each of their cabs’ rear side windows. The decals, printedin English and Spanish, say: “This vehicle may be stopped andvisually inspected by the Boston police at any time to ensuredriver’s safety.”
Ronald Woodrum was a passenger in a taxi stopped by two Bostonpolicemen in a high-crime neighborhood shortly after midnight onJan. 22, 1998. Woodrum was arrested and charged with carrying a gunand possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute.
After unsuccessfully challenging the admissibility of the seizedgun and cocaine as evidence against him, Woodrum pleaded guilty toreduced charges but did not forfeit his right to appeal thevalidity of the officers’ action.
The appeals court upheld his conviction, saying the TIPS stopamounted to a “rather modest intrusion on passengers’ liberty.”
The cases were New York vs. Boswell, 99-1440, Corporation Counselvs. Muhammad F., 99-1443, and Woodrum vs. U.S., 00-60.