Why do drivers whose cars are seized for supposedly operating as an illegal taxi have to prove their innocence? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? Is that how the TLC gets its 80% conviction rate?
How, indeed, could the city prove they are guilty (I've been in criminal court a lot with kids)? Shouldn't the gentleman's two girls in the New York DNA story have had to come to the hearing to testify that it was a paid ride to convict him? Nobody has to talk to a TLC cop. Do most just give up -- intimidated by the crazy legal scam -- or are they found guilty as stated above if they cannot prove they are innocent?
When I was a gypsy cab driver in the Bronx back in the 1970s the mayor instructed the cops not to ticket us for picking up by hail because the medallion cabs would not, did not serve the Bronx and Harlem and in between. Does seven times as many stop-and-seizures than a few years ago -- in the final half year of stop-and-frisk Bloomberg's admin -- sound like a familiar purpose: scare MINORITY people about just driving around doing their legitimate business -- and -- reduce cab pick-up service to zero in minority areas: the old ethnic cleansing scheme; making way for yuppies?
Meantime YUPPIES take advantage of so-called "ride-sharing" by cars without livery plates, without livery insurance (ours used to be twice as high as the yellow cabs') and even brightly identified with big pink mustaches -- without getting arrested.
Just to hammer the latter home: legal aficionados may note some resemblance between Uber's and Lyft's dubious "ride sharing" self-description and Aereo's recently US Supreme Court disallowed self-description that it was only leasing antennas, not purveying copyrighted material.
PS. In my years as a gypsy (admittedly long ago, things may have changed) I never once picked up anyone with luggage or took anyone to a hotel downtown or to any airport, portrayed as the hot zones for catching in the original story -- it was not that kind of business.