Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 44, No. 43. October 25, 2014

• Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
• Library: Pennsylvania Register
• Published date: 25 October 2014
• Year: 2014

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 52—PUBLIC UTILITIES

PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY

[ 52 PA. CODE CHS. 1017 AND 1019 ]

Taxicab Safety Cameras

The Philadelphia Parking Authority (Authority), on

June 12, 2014, adopted the final-form rulemaking order

to provide for the use of safety cameras in Philadelphia

taxicabs.

Philadelphia Taxicab and Limousine Regulations;

Safety Cameras; Doc. No. 126-8

Final Rulemaking Order

By the Authority:

The Authority is the sole regulator of all taxicab and

limousine service in Philadelphia.

1

In furtherance of

those regulatory functions, the Authority issued a pro-

posed regulation at this docket number on November 25,

2013. The initial public comment period for this rule-

making proceeding concluded on April 7, 2014, the Inde-

pendent Regulatory Review Commission (‘‘IRRC’’) submit-

ted its comments on May 7, 2014. The Authority has

completed its review of the comments and now issues the

final-form regulation.

Purpose of the Final-Form Regulation

It has been widely recommended to the Authority on

several occasions, including public comment hearings

related to driver safety issues, that safety cameras be

placed in all taxicabs in Philadelphia. The cameras will

deter crimes and other bad acts in taxicabs by increasing

the likelihood that perpetrators will be apprehended with

the assistance of the photographic evidence produced by

the cameras.

Discussion

The Authority has reviewed all of the comments filed

under this docket and responds as set forth below.

§ 1017.5. Basic vehicle standards.

This section is amended to remove reference to section

5714(b) of the act from paragraph (12). Act 119 removed

specific reference to a shield from that section of the act,

but granted the Authority the power to select safety

devices, this change will make the regulation consistent.

Paragraph (26) is added to require safety cameras among

the other basic vehicle standards.

Subchapter G. Safety Cameras

§ 1017.71. Taxicab safety cameras.

This section will provide owners with 120 days from the

effective date of the regulation to present their taxicabs to

the Authority for inspection with an approved and in-

stalled safety camera system. The regulation provides

guidelines related to the initial inspection, sealing and

posting of notices necessary to place the camera systems

in operation.

Subsection (b)(3)(iii) has been amended to clarify that

the Enforcement Department will post notice of the

presence of the safety cameras on the interior and

exterior of the vehicle. Section 1017.77(b) has also been

amended to clarify that these notices must be affixed to

both the exterior and interior of the taxicab.

§ 1017.72. Safety camera system testing.

This section provides that camera systems inspections

may conducted by scheduling or in the field and may

include the operation of the taxicab with an inspector

present.

§ 1017.73. Approved safety camera system.

This section provides that the Authority will maintain a

list of already approved safety camera systems on its

website, as with meter systems in § 1017.23 (relating to

approved meters).

§ 1017.74. Safety camera requirements.

This section will provide minimum components of what

a safety camera system must include. Commentator Black

Point Taxi, LLC, et al. (‘‘BPT’’) questioned the constitu-

tionality of using safety cameras in taxicabs. IRRC asked

that the Authority address this issue. BPT cites several

cases related to unreasonable search and seizure, some

including taxicabs.

We agree that the Fourth Amendment does not stop at

a taxicab’s back door. However, the open and obvious

photographing of a passenger in a government licensed

taxicab that is open to public use on a public roadway is

simply not an ‘‘unreasonable’’ search. Indeed, the first

case cited by BPT, Katz v. U.S., actually supports this

position when it provides: ‘‘What a person knowingly

exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is

not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.’’

2

The

United States Supreme Court has specifically found that

a person does not have a reasonable expectation of

privacy from aerial surveillance even within his fenced-in

backyard, because the yard can be seen from the air.

3

BPT cites a series of inapplicable criminal cases. Each

of those cases involved the surreptitious surveillance of

individuals by law enforcement or trespass upon private

property by law enforcement engaged in the inspection of

individuals’ bags or other possessions. A search within the

meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitu-

tion ‘‘occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is

prepared to consider reasonable is infringed.’’

4

In Hassan

the court determined that private financial data collected

through the mandated New York City taxicab meter

system did not constitute an unreasonable search. Simi-

larly, the Courts in Pennsylvania have found as follows:

‘‘[a] person has a constitutionally-protected expecta-

tion of privacy in cases where: (1) the person has

exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of pri-

vacy; and (2) society is prepared to recognize the

expectation of privacy as reasonable.’’

5

The taxicab passenger cannot demand that the driver

not listen to the passenger’s conversation. A taxicab

passenger cannot demand that a driver not look at the

passenger. The taxicab passenger cannot demand that the

world, including the government, avert its gaze while the

person hails or enters a taxicab on a public street, while

riding in the taxicab on a public roadway or upon exiting

1The act of July 16, 2004, (P.L. 758, No. 94), 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 5701 et seq., as

amended, (the ‘‘act’’).

2389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967).

3California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986).

4Hassan El-Nahal v. David Yassky et al 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13522 (U.S.N.Y

January 29, 2014), quoting, Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 469, 105 S. Ct. 2778, 86

L. Ed. 2d 370 (1985).

5Commonwealth v. Duncan, 817 A.2d 455, 463 (Pa. 2003).

6769

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 44, NO. 43, OCTOBER 25, 2014