Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

Video in taxis rejected

A measure requiring the installation of cameras in Clark County's 2,500 taxicabs is in limbo after a legislative panel unanimously objected Monday to regulations adopted last year by the Nevada Taxicab Authority.

The Legislative Commission's Committee to Review Regulations, after hearing an hour of testimony from regulators, cab company owners, cabdrivers and right-to-privacy advocates, voted unanimously to object to regulations adopted in October by the Taxicab Authority.

The action sets in motion a timetable of reconsideration of the regulation, which would have required the installation of cameras in cabs by April 1. Depending on future actions of the Taxicab Authority and lawmakers, the regulation could be scrapped, amended or reconsidered -- but could still be enacted in its current state.

It now seems doubtful that the cameras-in-cabs rules will take effect in April as initially envisioned by the Taxicab Authority.

The committee's primary objection to the regulations was that it did not address the use of digital video recording equipment in cabs. The regulations adopted by the Taxicab Authority require a system that would photograph occupants of a cab. The regulations are silent about the audio recording of events in a cab.

The Taxicab Authority voted in October to require camera systems in cabs as a deterrent measure to protect cab drivers from being assaulted by passengers. The issue came to a head in mid-2004 when a cab driver was killed by a passenger in a botched robbery attempt.

With the deadline for installation rapidly approaching, some cab companies already have invested in video camera systems that record the statutory number of pictures -- one image per second -- but they also are capable of recording sounds within cabs.

Several cabdrivers feared the video camera systems could eavesdrop on passengers and chase them to rival limousine companies.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada sought the hearing of the legislative committee. Allen Lichtenstein of the ACLU of Nevada's Las Vegas office told the committee that the video camera systems could violate the privacy rights of passengers.

Yvette Moore, administrator of the Taxicab Authority, said the regulation doesn't address the installation of sound equipment and that there is no law preventing companies from upgrading to video recording systems.

Brent Bell, owner of the Whittlesea Bell Transportation Co., said the purpose of video camera systems is to add an extra layer of protection to drivers, since those systems could record threatening conversations or clear drivers of accusations of impropriety. He said most video camera systems aren't capable of recording and storing every conversation in a cab and most recordings would be deleted each day unless a crime was committed.

But committee members said they feared that the privacy rights of passengers could be violated.

"The best possible technology may not necessarily be in the best public interest," said committee member Sen. Warren Hardy.

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley added that an invasion of privacy "may end up backfiring on our tourist economy."

The measure now could take one of several paths.

Under regulations regarding legislative suspensions, if the Legislative Commission objects to a regulation, the agency may revise he regulation until the commission withdraws its objection and the regulation would then be submitted by the director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau to the secretary of state for filing.

If the agency refuses to revise the regulation, the commission may suspend the nfiling of the regulation until the 30th day of the ext legislative session and notify the agency that the rule is not effective.

Before that date, the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, may declare that the regulation will not become effective and the agency may not enforce it. But, if the Legislature has not approved a concurrent resolution by the 30th day of the session, the regulation would be filed with the secretary of state and enacted.

With the Nevada Legislature due to convene next month, the timetable for action has been compressed.

The Taxicab Authority doesn't have enough time to fulfill its legal notification requirements to place the issue on its January meeting agenda. Unless the Taxicab Authority conducts a special meeting, the earliest it could reconsider the regulation would be at its scheduled Feb. 22 meeting.

Richard Land, chairman of the Taxicab Authority, who attended Monday's session but did not testify, said the authority board would have to regroup and consider what it would do next.

He said if regulations are redrafted, it would take several months to conduct workshops and hearings on a new proposal prior to reconsideration of the issue.

archive