Tag: municipal ordinances

Guess who’s driving for Uber

The background checking policies of Uber and other ride-sharing companies like Lyft and Sidecar are again in the news, after an Uber driver with an extensive criminal record allegedly raped a female passenger in New Delhi.  Other horror stories of cab rides from hell with these popular “taxi aggregators” are surfacing.  The New York Times reports that background check requirements for taxi drivers vary widely by jurisdiction, but are “generally more rigorous” than the sketchy services used by Uber and its competitors, and “usually include searches of private databases like F.B.I. records.”  (Note to self:  Must inform the “paper of record” that the FBI records system is not a “private database.”) Uber et al. have so far successfully resisted most legislative efforts to require them to perform particular kinds of background checks using particular kinds of background checkers, using the good offices of well-connected lobbyists to avoid this annoying speed bump on their road to a public offering.  But episodes like the New Delhi rape, and lawsuits for misleading consumers about the kinds of checks they do, may bring them around to a more responsible position. Sooner or later Uber and its confreres will likely be compelled to do responsible background checking of driver applicants, and they should be.  But the more interesting question is what standards these new age taxi companies will apply to test the suitability of their driver candidates. A search of the Uber website finds only the anodyne statement that a potential driver must have a “clean record.”  Various news accounts suggest that a felony conviction will always be disqualifying, but beyond that Uber’s hiring criteria appear unclear.  One question that occurred to me was whether a 20-year-old felony conviction for, say, credit card fraud or tax evasion would disqualify a person from driving for Uber where a fairly recent misdemeanor assault or reckless driving conviction would not.  News accounts do not say whether Uber executives (perhaps an oxymoron) are expected or permitted to exercise discretion in hiring, or what the consequences are when an Uber driver has some run-in with the law, whether or not it involves driving. In her excellent new article on collateral consequences in local regulations (previewed elsewhere on this site), Amy Meek argues that driving a taxi is one of those entry-level occupations that ought to be available to people whose opportunities in the workforce are otherwise limited, like an immigrant or someone with a criminal record.  At the same time, public safety considerations are obviously paramount where someone is expected to entrust their safety to a total stranger, albeit temporarily.  I agree with Meek that “While criminal background check policies have been upheld as permissible public safety regulations, responsible policies should refer to relevant convictions only and clearly outline the standards for relevance.”  If state or local governments decide to impose rigorous background check requirements on Uber and similar ride-sharing operations, they should at the same time supply specific guidance about when a taxi driver’s criminal record should be considered disqualifying and when it should not. Read more

“Street Vendors, Taxicabs, and Exclusion Zones: The Impact of Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions at the Local Level”

Amy Meek just sent us her colorfully titled and important new article recently published in the Ohio State Law Journal, about the collateral consequences imposed by municipal and county ordinances.  As far as I know, this is the first serious effort to address consideration of conviction in connection with opportunities and benefits controlled at the local level.  As the abstract below suggests, many types of entrepreneurial opportunities likely to be attractive to people with a criminal record are subject to governmental regulation below the state level. Because these local ordinances and regulations are rarely included in collections of state collateral consequences, they are invisible to defendants and unavailable to their counsel and the court at the time of plea or sentencing.  Only in a few large municipalities, notably New York City, are criminal justice practitioners even aware of this locally created and administered system of restrictions and exclusions.  For example, with the exception of the District of Columbia, municipal and county rules and regulations are not included in the NIJ-funded National Inventory of the Collateral Consequences of Conviction (NICCC). The potential for interaction between state and local authorities is a particularly intriguing subject that Professor Meek explores in her recommendations for legislative reform. Here is the abstract: Some of the most severe collateral consequences of criminal convictions are imposed through city and county ordinances and policies. This Article offers the first in-depth examination of these municipal policies, including permits and licensing ordinances, registration and exclusion zones, third-party background-check requirements, and local hiring policies. Some municipal ordinances, such as residential restrictions on sex offenders, impose far harsher sanctions than their state counterparts, effectively banishing certain individuals from the community. In addition, municipal licensing ordinances limit access to occupations — such as street vending, operating a food cart, or driving a taxicab — that offer valuable entrepreneurial opportunities to individuals with criminal convictions. Often invisible to defendants at the time of sentencing, these local policies have been used as a way to exile “undesirables” by effectively barring them from living, working, or participating in public life in their communities. This Article offers suggestions for legislative reform to address the patchwork of collateral consequences that can lead to exile at the local level. States may pass laws preempting municipal restrictions, or municipalities can lead the way by adopting collateral consequences ordinances (such as the one unanimously passed in New Haven, Connecticut) that mitigate the impact of these restrictions by setting uniform standards and informing attorneys and the public. We expect to post a more extensive discussion and analysis of Professor Meek’s article as soon as we can. In addition, the Center board has been discussing the possibility of developing a template that could be used by local jurisdictions to create their own on-line catalogue of rules and policies governing consideration of conviction in employment, licensing, housing, and other benefits and opportunities controlled at the local level.  Optimally, this template would be compatible with and permit interaction with the one used to compile the NICCC inventory, so that defense lawyers and others could go to one place to find all of the consequences potentially relevant to their situation.  We expect to post a link to the NICCC as soon as certain technical problems with that resource have been ironed out. Read more