Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment finding that the use of Global Positioning System ("GPS") technology to track plaintiffs who are taxicab drivers in New York City is a search under New York Law and further finding that this search, when conducted without a warrant, violates the New York State Constitution. Plaintiffs also seek a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting defendants David Yassky, in his official capacity as Chairman of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission ("TLC") and the City of New York (collectively the "City") from using the evidence obtained from the GPS device in administrative hearings and prohibiting Cyrus Vance, Jr. in his official capacity as the New York County District Attorney ("DANY"), from using the same evidence in criminal proceedings. The City moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety and/or declaring that the use of evidence obtained from GPS devices installed in plaintiffs' taxicabs during the course of administrative hearings against plaintiffs does not violate New York law or the New York Constitution. DANY moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety and/or granting summary judgment declaring that the use of evidence obtained from TTS does not violate the New York State Constitution. The court denies plaintiffs' motion and denies defendants' motions for summary judgment in part for the reasons set forth below.

The relevant facts are as follows. The New York City Charter grants the TLC the power to regulate the taxicab industry in New York City. Pursuant to this authority, the TLC requires all New York City taxicabs to be equipped with the Taxicab Technology System ("TTS"). TTS consists of a passenger monitor, a driver information monitor, a GPS device and a credit card point of sale device that allows for the payment of taxicab fares by credit card. TTS collects data from the meter, the GPS device, the driver's information monitor and the credit card point of sale device. The information collected by the TTS is commonly referred to as a trip sheet data. TTS transmits the trip sheet data via cellular signals to a secure server maintained by the TLC.

In early 2010, using electronic trip data that had been collected via the GPS devices installed in taxicabs and transmitted to the TLC, the TLC discovered that certain taxicab drivers had been illegally overcharging passengers by using Rate Code 4, the higher out-of-town rate, for trips that were taking place solely within New York City which should have been charged using Rate Code 1. Specifically, the TLC used information concerning passenger pick-ups and drop-off locations and times for trips where Rate Code 4 was used by the driver to determine whether that code had been improperly used. Plaintiffs in this action are New York City taxicab drivers whom defendants believe have overcharged passengers by improperly using Rate Code 4 for trips [*2]that took place within New York City. Plaintiffs anticipate that the City will seek to introduce data obtained from GPS devices in administrative hearings to revoke their taxicab driver's licenses and that DANY will seek to introduce the same data in criminal prosecutions for charging illegal rates. However, as of this time, the City and DANY have not commenced any criminal or administrative proceedings against plaintiffs.

"The general rule is that, once a criminal action has been initiated, a criminal defendant may not bring a declaratory judgment action to raise a statutory interpretation or other issue that can be adjudicated in the criminal prosecution .... Before a criminal action is commenced, however, a declaratory judgment may be entertained in the discretion of the court if the constitutionality or legality of a statute or regulation is in question and no question of fact is involved." Cayuga Indian Nation of NY v. Gould, 14 NY3d 614, 633-634 (2010).

In the instant action, this court will not exercise its discretion to entertain a declaratory judgment action against DANY. The court will not exercise its discretion to entertain a declaratory judgment action because in the event that criminal proceedings are brought against plaintiffs, the constitutional issues can be raised in the context of the criminal prosecutions. In fact, in criminal prosecutions of taxicab drivers for illegally overcharging passengers which stem from the same TLC investigation as that raised in the instant action, the criminal courts in New York County have indeed ruled on the same constitutional arguments presented by plaintiffs in the instant action.

With regard to any administrative hearings that may be brought against plaintiffs, the court also declines to entertain a declaratory judgment action or issue an injunction against the City. Since the City has yet to bring any administrative hearings against plaintiffs, their claims are not ripe for judicial review. In the event that the City brings administrative charges against plaintiffs, any constitutional challenges can be raised at the administrative hearings themselves and subsequently challenged in Article 78 proceedings.

Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment seeking a judicial declaration that the use of the GPS device in taxicabs is a search under New York Law and that this search when conducted without a warrant violates the New York State Constitution is denied. In accordance with the court's denial of plaintiffs' request that this court entertain a declaratory judgment action, plaintiffs' motion seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting DANY from using the evidence obtained from the GPS device in criminal proceedings is also denied and plaintiffs' motion seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the City from using the evidence obtained from the GPS device in administrative hearings is denied. Plaintiffs' request that defendants pay attorneys' fees and costs is denied. Defendants' motions for summary judgment with regard to the underlying constitutional issues are denied. This constitutes the decision, order and judgment of the court.

Dated:Enter: _____________________

J.S.C.