The Last Uncorrupt Federal Judge Rules Against NYC Warrantless Vehicle Seizures

nder an aggressive policy meant to combat unlicensed vehicles for-hire, the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) has seized over 21,000 cars since 2012. After a seizure, commission inspectors pressure owners to plead guilty and pay hundreds of dollars in fines to recover their property. The Commission’s citywide dragnet not only cracked down those who compete with established transportation companies, but also ensnared regular New Yorkers, who were simply driving their friends, family, neighbors—and even nuns—around the city.

After the TLC seized their cars without warrants, five owners sued in federal court last year. As they asserted in their complaint, the government cannot “seize property without judicial process and hold the property hostage.”

On September 30, Manhattan U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni agreed and held that the warrantless seizures violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. “‘Probable cause’ is not a talismanic phrase that can be waved like a wand to justify the seizure of any property without a warrant,” she wrote. The decision marks an important victory for due process and property rights.

TLC inspectors “fall somewhere between meter maids and cops,” as the New York Daily News once put it. While barred from carrying guns, the Commission’s 170 inspectors carry badges, are authorized to make arrests, and may carry pepper spray and batons, and wear bulletproof vests while performing their duties. City law allows TLC inspectors to seize cars suspected of being unlicensed vehicles for hire. The Commission does not release cars it seizes until a hearing that is supposed to occur no later than two weeks after the seizure.

However, owners can retrieve their cars beforehand if they either plead guilty and pay a fine (ranging from $600 to $1,150) or post a bond of $2,000, equal to the maximum penalty under the for-hire vehicle law. If an owner opts for the latter, the bond will only be released if he or she prevails at the hearing. One TLC inspector even blasted the Commission’s enforcement division as “more or less just a corrupt money-making scam for the city.” Clearly, there is a strong incentive for the owner to plead guilty, even if he or she has done nothing wrong.

Take Pedro Camacho, one of the plaintiffs in the case. In January 2014, he dropped off his niece at JFK Airport. After Camacho said goodbye, TLC inspectors seized his car and accused him of dropping off an Asian woman for $45. Camacho’s niece is Hispanic and inspectors never questioned her. Nevertheless, inspectors tried to pressure Camacho into pleading guilty and paying $600 in fines. He refused. Fortunately, at a hearing two weeks after the seizure, the Commission withdrew charges.

Even in cases where owners win, they can still lose their vehicles. In December 2013, Michael Harrell, another plaintiff, lent his car to a friend, but inspectors seized it. Since Harrell was unable to attend a hearing (scheduled two days before Christmas), a default judgement was entered in favor of the Commission. But Harrell successfully moved to vacate that decision and received a new hearing in June 2014. At that hearing, an administrative law judge ruled that the TLC “did not have any evidence” for its accusations and dismissed the case. Unfortunately, by that time, the Commission had already sold Harrell’s car and “did not offer any restitution or other financial compensation.”

Camacho and Harrell represent just a fraction of those who have fallen prey to wrongful seizures. Last year, an in-depth investigation by online news service DNAinfo found 176 cases that were dismissed because the drivers proved that their passengers were family, friends or neighbors, and not strangers looking for a taxi ride. One of the more egregious cases involved Cirilo Fortunato, who volunteered for an order of Catholic nuns. In July 2013, the order asked him to take two nuns to the airport, so Fortunato borrowed his son’s minivan for the trip. But when they arrived at the terminal, inspectors accused Fortunato of running an illegal cab and seized the car. Ultimately, he was able to get his case dismissed.

Those seizures never should have occurred. The Fourth Amendment famously protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Only in certain circumstances are warrantless seizures permitted. Attempting to exploit these exceptions, the city claimed it did not need a warrant for its seizures because the cars were seized in public; they were contraband and “instrumentalities” of crime; and “the vehicles pose a danger to society.”

In a highly engaged decision, Judge Caproni methodically rebuffed each of the city’s arguments. First, publicly seizing property “is of no moment,” since the seizure still invades the owner’s property rights. Meanwhile, under New York law, cars are not contraband, unlike say, child pornography or unregistered hand grenades. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in a civil forfeiture case from more than 50 years ago, “There is nothing even remotely criminal in possessing an automobile.”

Moreover, the city cannot claim the seized vehicles are instrumentalities of crime, since the city usually returns the cars, as long as the owners posts bond or pays a fine. That policy also undermines the city’s claim that warrantless seizures are needed to remove unfit cars from the road.  Incredibly, after seizing cars, the Commission does not pursue criminal prosecutions or forfeiture. (The Institute for Justice has long exposed abuses with the latter.) Instead, violations are “enforced, almost exclusively, through civil penalties,” Judge Caproni explained. No federal court, she concluded, “has ever upheld the warrantless seizure of private property in order to ensure payment of a fine.” Since the decision, the TLC has said it has stopped seizing cars. This ruling demonstrates how judicial engagement is vital for defending constitutional liberties by restraining abuses of power.