Wheely USA, Inc. is a London-based for-hire vehicle (FHV) company with a privacy-based business model. Wheely left Russia when the government there required it “to provide access to passenger geolocation data as a condition of operating.”
Wheely wants to offer New Yorkers its services, but it cannot comply with rules promulgated by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), akin to those it faced in Moscow. These require every licensed FHV base to send the government a comprehensive record of each completed trip, every month, for as long as the company operates in the city. This data would then be stored in a centralized database for TLC personnel to peruse.
Wheely challenged the TLC rules as an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The district court upheld them under the administrative search exception, concluding that the FHV industry is closely regulated. Wheely appealed to the Second Circuit, where Cato filed an amicus brief supporting its challenge.
The administrative search exception is limited and cannot authorize a search that a warrant could not constitutionally greenlight. The district court’s analysis imposes no meaningful restraints on a search’s necessity, method, or scope, thereby turning a warrant exception into a windfall for government agents.
The district court’s error will not stay confined to FHVs. The decision creates a replicable framework under which any regulatory agency may impose continuous location tracking with no judicial oversight and no endpoint. The district court’s decision could subject many New Yorkers to the possibility of long-term and continuous surveillance.
Wheely left Moscow when the government there demanded geolocation data on its passengers. It should not have to keep out of Manhattan for the very same reason.