El-Nahal v. Yassky, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15767

TLC (New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission) required Taxicab Technology Systems (TTS) with GPS in all medallion taxis to transmit trip data and provide payment services; rule implemented beginning 2007.
TLC used GPS data to investigate alleged overcharging via improper use of a higher rate code; administrative prosecutions followed against many drivers, including El‑Nahal.
El‑Nahal, a long‑time taxi driver, faced repeated administrative charges based in part on GPS trip records; administrative tribunals repeatedly overturned convictions and dismissed charges with prejudice, noting GPS data alone did not prove intent.
El‑Nahal sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the mandatory installation/use of GPS-equipped TTS devices constituted a property‑based Fourth Amendment search under United States v. Jones.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding no Fourth Amendment search (and alternatively that any search was reasonable under the special‑needs doctrine). The Second Circuit affirmed on the alternative ground that El‑Nahal failed to show a required property interest at the time of any alleged physical intrusion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandatory installation/use of TTS GPS systems constitutes a property‑based Fourth Amendment search under Jones	Jones establishes that physically placing a tracking device on a vehicle is a search; TLC’s mandate amounted to physical placement of tracking devices in privately owned taxis, so El‑Nahal’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated	The Jones trespass rule requires that the defendant had a property interest in the affected effect at the time of the physical intrusion; defendants argued there is no evidence El‑Nahal had such an interest when any TTS was installed and that initial placement was not at issue	Affirmed summary judgment for defendants: plaintiff failed to present evidence he had a property interest in a taxi when any alleged trespass/installation occurred, so essential element of Jones claim not met

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012) (installation of GPS on vehicle and use to monitor movements constitutes a search under property‑based trespass analysis)
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1983) (use of a beeper to track container on public roads did not invade reasonable expectation of privacy; placement occurred before defendant’s possession)
United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1984) (beeper placed with consent of prior owner; defendant accepted container with device)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (reasonable‑expectation‑of‑privacy test for Fourth Amendment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; movant may point to absence of evidence on essential element)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2013) (physical entry into constitutionally protected area to gather information is a search; scope of implied license is limited)
Grady v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 1368 (U.S. 2015) (attaching tracking device to a person’s body without consent constitutes a search under Jones reasoning)