# Ex Taco Bell exec suing uber driver for $5mil



## Bob Reynolds

The Taco Bell executive that attacked the Uber driver and was fired is now suing the Uber driver for $5 million dollars.

What a nice guy!

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/15/ex-taco-bell-exec-now-suing-uber-driver-for-5-million.html


----------



## wethepeople

HAHAHAHA !!! just read the article

and hell yeah let's collect the $5millions in quarters and plug them into his dirty stinky ass !
whatever he poops out we feed him until he has the whole 5 millions in quarters in his body,
then let's ask him to go swimming.

What a greedy bastard.. 

I say if he wins the claim he better moves to Mexico because everyone now knows his ugly face.


----------



## Jufkii

So much for the dash cam being recommended idea.


----------



## Wallricko

He was obviously so remorseful in his apology, wasn't he.


----------



## wethepeople

This is my top 10 list of criminals being "loved" in jail:

1. child rapists and child murderers 
2. cop killers
3. people who punch Uber drivers
4. ...
5. ...

Those people deserve the full experience and backstage passes in jails.


----------



## Keyser Söze

Next uber commandment will be that drivers aren't allowed to carry pepper spray.


----------



## tb1984

Jufkii said:


> So much for the dash cam being recommended idea.


You just need to let your passengers know about dash cam and audio recording.


----------



## Bob Reynolds

Jufkii said:


> So much for the dash cam being recommended idea.


All Uber needs to do is to add a provision to the riders agreement that indicates Uber vehicles may record audio and video with the rider in the vehicle.


----------



## maui

Reminds me of Richard Thomas - he is the guy that tried to sue the girl he raped because he contracted an STD from her.


----------



## North End Eric

LOL
Good luck, asshole.


----------



## Coachman

Wallricko said:


> He was obviously so remorseful in his apology, wasn't he.


The apology didn't stop the driver from suing him. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. That's just life.


----------



## Mr. T

A former Taco Bell executive who was arrested and fired after a viral dash-cam video showed him attacking an Uber driver is now suing that driver for $5 million - saying the driver illegally recorded the violent incident.

Ousted exec Benjamin Golden, 32, also said in court papers that driver Edward Caban, is to blame for any injuries he suffered during their Oct. 30 encounter in Costa Mesa, Calif.

Golden's lawyer Courtney Pilchman told CNBC on Friday that she also has informed prosecutors she will seek to have Caban's video of the attack barred from evidence in the criminal case against Golden on the grounds that the recording was allegedly illegally made by the driver.

Pilchman said that Caban, 23, seems to be "quite the opportunist," and that "there's very little truth to the damages that he claims," which include post-traumatic stress and claims that he lives in fear after his violent confrontation with Golden.

"I don't believe he has any of those," she said.

Both Golden's claim for $5 million in damages from Caban and others, as well as his suggestion that Caban bore responsibility for any "damages" he incurred, are contained in court documents filed in response to Caban's own civil lawsuit against Golden for the attack.

Caban's lawyer Rivers Morrell III on Friday said that Golden's claims about the recording's legal status and his blaming of Caban are "disingenuous" and "totally bogus."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fired-taco-bell-exec-uber-attack-suing-driver-5-million-n497646


----------



## sidewazzz

Lol


----------



## SlowBoat

Personal responsibility anyone? His parents must be so proud. This year just started but he wins "entitled dirt bag for 2016"


----------



## Bart McCoy

So this should be an easy case. Exactly what is the law in that state about recording?


----------



## Dhaval Panara

Actually I am surprised it took him this long to File a Law Suit. I was expecting this the Day I saw the Video. I know that this is messed up but the Drive was at Fault for not consenting with the Rider that he being Recording worse Audio Recorded as well. I work in CCTV Industry and you need to make sure that you put clear signs of any recording devices specially audio when in your property. Most probably the Drive will lose this case. I really hope his lawyer comes out with a smart way to save him. For other Dash Cam users who have Cameras facing in the Customer make sure that they know they are being recorded specially Audio (CA highly with Audio).


----------



## SlowBoat

Bart McCoy said:


> So this should be an easy case. Exactly what is the law in that state about recording?


California is a two party consent state for audio. Not sure about video part. And not sure if it's applicable if you think a crime is about to be committed.


----------



## SlowBoat

Hey, Taco Bell, what about suing your ex-employee for damaging your brand. Say $10 million should cover it. When Uber drivers pass your restaurants we can't help but to remember that beat down.


----------



## Wallricko

Coachman said:


> The apology didn't stop the driver from suing him. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. That's just life.


You beat the crap out of someone and think saying "I'm sorry" is going to fix it?

Lol, what are we still kindergarten?


----------



## ubershiza

tu quieres toco bell? Comer esta


----------



## sd1303

California Penal Code 632
(a)  Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication...records the confidential communication... shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment...  

(c) The term “confidential communication” includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a ... circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.


----------



## UberHoyt

Bob Reynolds said:


> All Uber needs to do is to add a provision to the riders agreement that indicates Uber vehicles may record audio and video with the rider in the vehicle.


You guys do realize that Uber has total access to turn on your microphone and your camera at any time during your at being active do you think they're asking each individual rider beforehand for consent. They're not even asking you for consent every time they turn it on


----------



## Lag Monkey

I don't wanna live on this planet anymore


----------



## Kalee

Bob Reynolds said:


> The Taco Bell executive that attacked the Uber driver and was fired is now suing the Uber driver for $5 million dollars.
> 
> What a nice guy!
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/15/ex-taco-bell-exec-now-suing-uber-driver-for-5-million.html


I guess public assistance just isn't cutting it for his unemployable ass.


----------



## RightTurnClyde

Jufkii said:


> So much for the dash cam being recommended idea.


Haha, but where would Caban the uber driver be without that video (considering the attention and legal win it got)? I'd rather have a cam than not have one during any criminal actions committed against me. Even if dash cameras were totally against the law (it's not) I'd still have one. Then again, I believe Taco Bell boy is not suing for being filmed, he's suing because Caban put it on YouTube thus defaming him to a worldwide audience that cost him everything. You can sue anyone for any reason you want; proving your case in regards to the specifics of the law is a different thing altogether so in my opinion his lawsuit is just a load of crap, from a pos individual.


----------



## wrb82

Keyser Söze said:


> Next uber commandment will be that drivers aren't allowed to carry pepper spray.


That guy is lucky it wasnt me he attacked. I would have shot him dead.


----------



## ColdRider

LOL!


----------



## radioboy

Suing a driver for 5 mil? This dude is a dumb ass. Seriously.


----------



## RockinEZ

I guess we will know what a reasonable expectation of privacy in an Uber in California is.

I have the sound recording turned off on my camera. It also hangs down from behind the mirror and looks like a camera.

I will be looking for window stickers on eBay tonight.


----------



## ColdRider

"How low has society sunk when an important executive of a major company cannot drunkenly slap and pull the hair of a lowly cabbie with a foreign sounding name? If 1%ers are prohibited from assaulting the 47%er help, how are they to display their displeasure with less than stellar service? I am aghast!"


----------



## RockinEZ

ColdRider said:


> "How low has society sunk when an important executive of a major company cannot drunkenly slap and pull the hair of a lowly cabbie with a foreign sounding name? If 1%ers are prohibited from assaulting the 47%er help, how are they to display their displeasure with less than stellar service? I am aghast!"


Here! Here!


----------



## mark edwards

So the driver should counter sue in the same case (will not even have to pay filing fee) and he has the video. No jury or judge would not find for the driver.


----------



## Demon

Saw it coming and yes the exec will likely win the case.


----------



## UberXking

He didn't beat the shit out of the driver. 
The drivers we should be concerned about are the UberX in Pacifica who was in the accident on Christmas and the southern Ca
Lyft driver who was killed New Years eve!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

RockinEZ said:


> I guess we will know what a reasonable expectation of privacy in an Uber in California is.
> 
> I have the sound recording turned off on my camera. It also hangs down from behind the mirror and looks like a camera.
> 
> I will be looking for window stickers on eBay tonight.


The 


Dhaval Panara said:


> Actually I am surprised it took him this long to File a Law Suit. I was expecting this the Day I saw the Video. I know that this is messed up but the Drive was at Fault for not consenting with the Rider that he being Recording worse Audio Recorded as well. I work in CCTV Industry and you need to make sure that you put clear signs of any recording devices specially audio when in your property. Most probably the Drive will lose this case. I really hope his lawyer comes out with a smart way to save him. For other Dash Cam users who have Cameras facing in the Customer make sure that they know they are being recorded specially Audio (CA highly with Audio).


Driver should ask for a jury trial and instruct the jury about nullification.


----------



## observer

notfair said:


> Actually in the commission of a crime you can record someone. Plus, drivers are in public and semi-public places, with camera visible so it's totally reasonable to expect recording. What a complete POS this violent loser is.


Not only was camera visible, didn't he turn it so it faced inside the car?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

This shows what a moron this guy is. It seems that eating all of that Taco Bell made him expel some grey matter (what little he had) from his posterior.

What UberX driver has five million dollars?

Considering this latest round of pay cuts, what UberX driver has even fifty dollars?


----------



## Kruhn

Coachman said:


> The apology didn't stop the driver from suing him. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. That's just life.


The driver sued first. He got the apology and then the Taco Bell Exec counter sued.


----------



## observer

Another Uber Driver said:


> This shows what a moron this guy is. It seems that eating all of that Taco Bell made him expel some grey matter (what little he had) from his posterior.
> 
> What UberX driver has five million dollars?
> 
> Considering this latest round of pay cuts, what UberX driver has even fifty dollars?


The driver may not but look for him to add Uber to the lawsuit.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

observer said:


> look for him to add Uber to the lawsuit.


Of course the lawyer will add Uber. In cases like these, the lawyer sues everyone, as he is looking for the "deep pockets". On paper, at least, Uber has the proverbial "deep pockets". While I would not be surprised to learn that most of Uber's funds are offshore and out of the reach of U.S. of A. courts, there must be a few million lying around somewhere on which a "plaintiff's lawyer" could possibly get his hands.

I would not be surprised if the lawyer were suing Yum Brands, as well. Pepsico has money, as well, on paper, at least.


----------



## Just_in

Another Uber Driver said:


> This shows what a moron this guy is. It seems that eating all of that Taco Bell made him expel some grey matter (what little he had) from his posterior.
> 
> What UberX driver has five million dollars?
> 
> Considering this latest round of pay cuts, what UberX driver has even fifty dollars?


The worst part is the driver is going to have to pay the court fee 400 bucks to respond. If the driver does not respond it goes into judgement. The Driver has to cough up a 10K retainer fee for a attorney.


----------



## RockinEZ

Having served on several juries I have to agree. 
If you are guilty, select the jury option. You have a 50/50 chance no matter what you did. 
Juries are an example of how no single one of us is as dumb as 12 of us together.


----------



## Mr. T

I can see the case going both ways. 

-it was in his personal car.
- how many dashcams do you see driving around in other cars? And how many have a sign or something saying you're being recorded?
-the kid clearly doesn't have $5mil. 
-the ex exec will still get ****ed harder than the kid(if he loses)


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

RockinEZ said:


> Having served on several juries I have to agree.
> If you are guilty, select the jury option. You have a 50/50 chance no matter what you did.
> Juries are an example of how no single one of us is as dumb as 12 of us together.


Well the jury can decide in your favor even if they think you're guilty (nullification). They don't always know that though. But this would be a prime case where I would expect it to be likely.


----------



## ABC123DEF

radioboy said:


> Suing a driver for 5 mil? This dude is a dumb ass. Seriously.


I guess the exec is aware that we all have stock options with Uber and that the rates allow us to buy a couple of new cars for cash every year.


----------



## ColoradoFuber

The driver will have to complete 35 millon trips to make enough to pay the $5 million.


----------



## ABC123DEF

Maybe it's just me...but isn't it stupid and a total waste of time, energy, and effort to sue someone who has no real money or assets?


----------



## Mr. T

ABC123DEF said:


> Maybe it's just me...but isn't it stupid and a total waste of time, energy, and effort to sue someone who has no real money or assets?


Yes


----------



## everythingsuber

radioboy said:


> Suing a driver for 5 mil? This dude is a dumb ass. Seriously.


The figure is ambient. If the driver is insured it will get settled out of court for enough to make him go away, if the driver is not insured he will get nothing.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

There was no reasonable expectation to privacy at all AND the camera was in plain view. Defendant wins.

Case closed.

Are we going to sue all the news companies that shove cameras in our faces next when out in public ?


----------



## melxjr

Uber has access to your phone camera and can at any point record you upon agreement, He broke the law, but now cares about the mass defamation he received. Sorry pal, sad thing is, Uber will settle.


----------



## sd1303

Judgments are enforcable for 10 years, and renewable beyond that. Even if a losing party is broke now, the prevailing party can ensure they remain broke for a long time... or force them into bankruptcy.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

He only broke the law if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. And the camera was in plain sight. You guys are really confused on the law. And it was in plain sight. He can't win.


----------



## Coachman

wrb82 said:


> That guy is lucky it wasnt me he attacked. I would have shot him dead.


----------



## Demon

uberdriverfornow said:


> There was no reasonable expectation to privacy at all AND the camera was in plain view. Defendant wins.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Are we going to sue all the news companies that shove cameras in our faces next when out in public ?


There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a private vehicle? Do you expect to be recorded when you get into a friend's car?


----------



## sd1303

Demon said:


> There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a private vehicle? Do you expect to be recorded when you get into a friend's car?


I would agree that signs that warn of the audio recording seem prudent in order to comply with California law.


----------



## sd1303

uberdriverfornow said:


> He only broke the law if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. And the camera was in plain sight. You guys are really confused on the law. And it was in plain sight. He can't win.


Not all dash cams record audio, and presumably the lens was in a forward-facing position when the passenger got in the car. I can see the argument being made. Betted to have warning signs, or not record audio.


----------



## D Town

sd1303 said:


> California Penal Code 632
> (a)  Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication...records the confidential communication... shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment...
> 
> (c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, *but excludes a ... circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.*





Demon said:


> There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a private vehicle? Do you expect to be recorded when you get into a friend's car?


Passengers in a car have been held to NOT have a fourth amendment claim to an expectation of privacy.
_
"However, the court also noted that "a mere passenger in a vehicle already stopped has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle‟s interior.""_

http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=lawreview


----------



## wethepeople

I hope the Uber driver did also sue him for being beaten up and hairpulled.. 
If the caused physical pain and possible deadfear of the driver has a higher value justice might happen.

If for some reason "just being recorded" during committing a felony crime equals to $5M, then why don't we people just break into random persons houses beat the homeowners and hope they have surveillance cameras so we can sue them ??

The EX taco bell guy should be thankful to god himself that the crime he committed happened in California and not Texas..
The driver just had pepperspray and not a firearm.

Who wants to become a Millionare :-D sure not that guy, he won't see a penny.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

People are saying elsewhere that it has been proven time and again that you have no expectation of privacy in a cab and an Uber is essentially similar. Creep loses.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Demon said:


> There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a private vehicle? Do you expect to be recorded when you get into a friend's car?


Are you really saying the camera wasnt in plain view of the rider ?

It sounds like you think people need to get written permission from everyone whenever they want to record someone in public.

This other guy quoted the exact law. Instead of trying to create a scenario that conforms to your view you need to look at the law with some common sense. Thats the problem with most juries, they make up their mind and dont really care to use common sense when it comes to the law.


----------



## Demon

uberdriverfornow said:


> He only broke the law if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. And the camera was in plain sight. You guys are really confused on the law. And it was in plain sight. He can't win.


That doesn't mean the passenger consented.


uberdriverfornow said:


> Are you really saying the camera wasnt in plain view of the rider ?
> 
> It sounds like you think people need to get written permission from everyone whenever they want to record someone in public.
> 
> This other guy quoted the exact law. Instead of trying to create a scenario that conforms to your view you need to look at the law with some common sense. Thats the problem with most juries, they make up their mind and dont really care to use common sense when it comes to the law.


I never said written permission, but as the law states, you must have consent to record someone in a private vehicle.


----------



## Demon

D Town said:


> Passengers in a car have been held to NOT have a fourth amendment claim to an expectation of privacy.
> _
> "However, the court also noted that "a mere passenger in a vehicle already stopped has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle‟s interior.""_
> 
> http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=lawreview


And that has what to do with this case?

Once a cop sees something in plain view they have all they need to search the rest of the vehicle. This ruling doesn't say anything about making a recording in a private vehicle.


----------



## Just_in

wethepeople said:


> I hope the Uber driver did also sue him for being beaten up and hairpulled..
> If the caused physical pain and possible deadfear of the driver has a higher value justice might happen.
> 
> If for some reason "just being recorded" during committing a felony crime equals to $5M, then why don't we people just break into random persons houses beat the homeowners and hope they have surveillance cameras so we can sue them ??
> 
> The EX taco bell guy should be thankful to god himself that the crime he committed happened in California and not Texas..
> The driver just had pepperspray and not a firearm.
> 
> Who wants to become a Millionare :-D sure not that guy, he won't see a penny.


It may not be about the 5 mil. The ex taco bell guy probably has deeper pockets. Trying to drown the beaten Uber driver in court and attorney fees.


----------



## Demon

Just_in said:


> It may not be about the 5 mil. The ex taco bell guy probably has deeper pockets. Trying to drown the beaten Uber driver in court and attorney fees.


So if the driver roles over and says he'll settle and is at fault, what would the exec hope to get from him?


----------



## Bart McCoy

uberdriverfornow said:


> He only broke the law if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. And the camera was in plain sight. You guys are really confused on the law. And it was in plain sight. He can't win.


its simply not that clear yet. and again depends on state by state laws. Unless you can link me to a past case where it was thrown out because it was ruled there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in an Uber/rideshare car?????????????



wethepeople said:


> I hope the Uber driver did also sue him for being beaten up and hairpulled..
> If the caused physical pain and possible deadfear of the driver has a higher value justice might happen.
> 
> Who wants to become a Millionare :-D sure not that guy, he won't see a penny.


the driver should also sue the taco bell guy civilly as well. And like someone mentioned, the ex taco bell guy could get money off insurance if the driver is broke



Demon said:


> So if the driver roles over and says he'll settle and is at fault, what would the exec hope to get from him?


whatever lil money the driver has to ensure he's broke for life, or insurance money (if they cover such incident)


----------



## Choochie

Tim In Cleveland said:


> People are saying elsewhere that it has been proven time and again that you have no expectation of privacy in a cab and an Uber is essentially similar. Creep loses.


It wasn't just that he was recorded. It was blasted all over the Internet and news, making the damage huge.


Demon said:


> And that has what to do with this case?
> 
> Once a cop sees something in plain view they have all they need to search the rest of the vehicle. This ruling doesn't say anything about making a recording in a private vehicle.


It's public transportation.


----------



## PoorBasterd

wethepeople said:


> and hell yeah let's collect the $5millions in quarters and plug them into his dirty stinky ass !


I volunteer for the job! <_putting on my latex gloves_>


----------



## Uber Kraus

Tim In Cleveland said:


> People are saying elsewhere that it has been proven time and again that you have no expectation of privacy in a cab and an Uber is essentially similar. Creep loses.


Always make sense the law does not.


----------



## RockinEZ

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Well the jury can decide in your favor even if they think you're guilty (nullification). They don't always know that though. But this would be a prime case where I would expect it to be likely.


I was actually on a jury that ignored the law and found a man not guilty. It is legal and you are correct. Most people do not know that a jury can ignore the law if it appears inappropriate.


----------



## RockinEZ

uberdriverfornow said:


> There was no reasonable expectation to privacy at all AND the camera was in plain view. Defendant wins.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Are we going to sue all the news companies that shove cameras in our faces next when out in public ?


It was the audio portion that is the problem in CA. 
Turn off audio recording on your camera in CA.


----------



## RockinEZ

Demon said:


> There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a private vehicle? Do you expect to be recorded when you get into a friend's car?


A paid Uber driver is not your friend any more than a cab driver is.


----------



## ADX

RockinEZ said:


> It was the audio portion that is the problem in CA.
> Turn off audio recording on your camera in CA.


And what about muting the video when posting it on the internet? Same effect? Release audio only if forced.


----------



## tohellwithu

He has Alzheimer!...God he needs a good treatment.


----------



## Fuzzy1

Not only was he dumb enough to attack a driver he is also dumb enough to trust an attorney.

I think the driver should get free tacos for life.

Awe the American dream. Get drunk and stupid, commit an assault and try to get a payday blaming others for your decisions.


----------



## wethepeople

notfair said:


> Seriously in every single state if someone is committing a crime on your property you can record them. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy. All PAX know smart phones can record audio and video. Cameras are in plain view.
> 
> I will be boycotting Taco Bell because they hired this type of despicable person and promoted him. I have actually had problems with Taco Hell in that area. So much so some people behind me in line were shocked at Taco Bell's behavior.
> 
> You give up your right to privacy when you assault someone and they catch you on film.


YEAH EXACTLY !
"he lost his right of privacy in the moment he attacked the driver (one of the charges was battery on a public transit driver)
somewhere I read he is expecting one year in prison or $25.000 dollars and is held on a $20.000 bail.

Do we have any former driverbrothers in prison? You guys know what to do right?? I mean in the moment that guy drops his soap to the floor muahahaha.....


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Demon said:


> Saw it coming and yes the exec will likely win the case.


The driver probably has no assets to go after

But this case will set a precedent , what ever outcome will be good 
It sets the rules straight

I'm not condoning the action of Taco Bell boy

BUT the driver was a moron

And who ever thinks they can make their own law is crazy 
easier fix : don't let drunks in your car


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Just_in said:


> The worst part is the driver is going to have to pay the court fee 400 bucks to respond. If the driver does not respond it goes into judgement. The Driver has to cough up a 10K retainer fee for a attorney.


Probably all the uber drivers pitch in 3 bucks to the 10K fund


----------



## D"icy"K

That exec looked like a fat frat boy with his backwards baseball cap, baggy shorts, too drunk to even know where he was, much less as to where he
was going. Despicable behavior for a grown ass man. Hey Benjamin Golden, if you want to know what your problem is, just look in the mirror. His
career is toast and he will never live this down.


----------



## D"icy"K

20yearsdriving said:


> The driver probably has no assets to go after
> 
> But this case will set a precedent , what ever outcome will be good
> It sets the rules straight
> 
> I'm not condoning the action of Taco Bell boy
> 
> BUT the driver was a moron
> 
> And who ever thinks they can make their own law is crazy
> easier fix : don't let drunks in your car


Don't let drunks in your car seems like a moronic solution.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

D"icy"K said:


> Don't let drunks in your car seems like a moronic solution.


Actually the reply was for you
Can you provide a fool proof better way ..... Let me guess ? No?


----------



## RockinEZ

ADX said:


> And what about muting the video when posting it on the internet? Same effect? Release audio only if forced.


I am guessing it is the act of capturing audio that needs two party permission.


----------



## RockinEZ

20yearsdriving said:


> Probably all the uber drivers pitch in 3 bucks to the 10K fund


He could do the GO FUND ME thing. 
Good freaking luck getting Uber drivers to contribute. We know he kinda messed up.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

RockinEZ said:


> He could do the GO FUND ME thing.
> Good freaking luck getting Uber drivers to contribute. We know he kinda messed up.


True 
Time to walk the walk 
It's thousands of you


----------



## Just_in

Demon said:


> So if the driver roles over and says he'll settle and is at fault, what would the exec hope to get from him?


 Driver Does not have to admit he is at fault and still settle. Probably because of monetary reasons. You have hearing's, motion's, judgements, appeals, attorney fee's that can get very expensive.


----------



## Demon

Just_in said:


> Driver Does not have to admit he is at fault and still settle. Probably because of monetary reasons. You have hearing's, motion's, judgements, appeals, attorney fee's that can get very expensive.


Yes, that's why I included the qualifier, if.


----------



## Just_in

Demon said:


> Yes, that's why I included the qualifier, if.


I agree. We are dealing with hypotheticals.


----------



## D Town

Demon said:


> And that has what to do with this case?
> 
> Once a cop sees something in plain view they have all they need to search the rest of the vehicle. This ruling doesn't say anything about making a recording in a private vehicle.


It has everything to do with this case. The key part is EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Its established that being a passenger in a car doesn't mean you have that. It doesn't mean you don't have that expectation as far as cops are concerned but you do with everyone else. That's not how the constitution works. Uber is consider public transport. You have no expectation of privacy in public transport. He loses. That's all. Goodnight.


----------



## Bob Reynolds

D Town said:


> It has everything to do with this case. The key part is EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Its established that being a passenger in a car doesn't mean you have that. It doesn't mean you don't have that expectation as far as cops are concerned but you do with everyone else. That's not how the constitution works. Uber is consider public transport. You have no expectation of privacy in public transport. He loses. That's all. Goodnight.


You are exactly right.


----------



## Kevin7889

Keyser Söze said:


> Next uber commandment will be that drivers aren't allowed to carry pepper spray.


Just leave weapons in the back seat for the pax so they can just kill whenever they feel like it 

Uber on guys


----------



## observer

wethepeople said:


> YEAH EXACTLY !
> "he lost his right of privacy in the moment he attacked the driver (one of the charges was battery on a public transit driver)
> somewhere I read he is expecting one year in prison or $25.000 dollars and is held on a $20.000 bail.
> 
> Do we have any former driverbrothers in prison? You guys know what to do right?? I mean in the moment that guy drops his soap to the floor muahahaha.....


I'm hoping he hasn't gone to trial and the judge throws the book at him.

He doesn't seem to be repentant at all.

Maybe they can negotiate him dropping five million dllr lawsuit in exchange for not going to jail for a few years.


----------



## D"icy"K

20yearsdriving said:


> Actually the reply was for you
> Can you provide a fool proof better way ..... Let me guess ? No?


Being an XL driver on weekend nights only, the majority of my pax are drunk. Moronic only in the sense, that without them I wouldn't make any money. It kind of goes with territory. Wasn't implying you were moronic.


----------



## D Town

observer said:


> I'm hoping he hasn't gone to trial and the judge throws the book at him.
> 
> He doesn't seem to be repentant at all.
> 
> Maybe they can negotiate him dropping five million dllr lawsuit in exchange for not going to jail for a few years.


Wait...so if I'm a criminal all I have to do is bring a frivoulous lawsuit against my victim and I can use that as leverage to get a lighter sentence for my crimes? That's not what you're hoping for, is it?


----------



## 20yearsdriving

D"icy"K said:


> Being an XL driver on weekend nights only, the majority of my pax are drunk. Moronic only in the sense, that without them I wouldn't make any money. It kind of goes with territory. Wasn't implying you were moronic.


I get it
What I read here tells me some uber drivers wish to educate / punish the drunks
I'm with you guys , but it makes no sense Drunks don't give a crap

The Taco Bell guy should go to jail

But imagine the driver was your employee ?? That hot head driver is a liability , driver is in the wrong bussiness

Trust me time & courts will confirm what I'm saying
All the scenarios listed in this forum have all ready happened numerous times
It's not going to change the outcome

I'm going to post a scenario you won't believe

I'm ending a ride early Drunk refuses to exit my cab , I call the cops
Drunk knew his stuff he demanded to either be taken to his destination or taken back to point of origin
He claimed we were " engaged " since I showed up to pick him up & let him in my car
Cop said he had a point
He said I was not obligated to drive him anywhere BUT it was best I call another cab for him, cop refused to make him exit ??
Because riders said , I'm not refusing to exit , but have a reasonable expectation of resolution
Cop agreed with him

And this incident has happened to many other drivers

Cop Can use "discretion "


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

uberdriverfornow said:


> He only broke the law if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. And the camera was in plain sight. You guys are really confused on the law. And it was in plain sight. He can't win.


If it's considered a commercial vehicle do there need to be signs in CA? Are there signs on buses? Do buses record audio or just video?

What about nanny cams? If it's a private vehicle then it's no different from your house. If nanny cams are ok in CA I would think a pax cam would be. The whole point of nanny cams is that they're hidden.

As a ridiculous argument, if he got in the car with a child and the camera recorded sound and video of him sexually groping that child while the driver was not looking (stopped for gas perhaps), and the driver saw it later and turned it into the police, would there be a lawsuit there? Would it be admissible?

Can a pax do anything illegal they want in an uber and the video and/or audio is not legal and/or not admissible?

Is everyone without signs "illegally taping"?

BTW I have never had any expectation of privacy in a cab. If you wouldn't do/say something (to a stranger!) you knew would be taped, then why would you do/say it at all?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

20yearsdriving said:


> I get it
> What I read here tells me some uber drivers wish to educate / punish the drunks
> I'm with you guys , but it makes no sense Drunks don't give a crap
> 
> The Taco Bell guy should go to jail
> 
> But imagine the driver was your employee ?? That hot head driver is a liability , driver is in the wrong bussiness
> 
> Trust me time & courts will confirm what I'm saying
> All the scenarios listed in this forum have all ready happened numerous times
> It's not going to change the outcome
> 
> I'm going to post a scenario you won't believe
> 
> I'm ending a ride early Drunk refuses to exit my cab , I call the cops
> Drunk knew his stuff he demanded to either be taken to his destination or taken back to point of origin
> He claimed we were " engaged " since I showed up to pick him up & let him in my car
> Cop said he had a point
> He said I was not obligated to drive him anywhere BUT it was best I call another cab for him, cop refused to make him exit ??
> Because riders said , I'm not refusing to exit , but have a reasonable expectation of resolution
> Cop agreed with him
> 
> And this incident has happened to many other drivers
> 
> Cop Can use "discretion "


I don't want to sound like I'm denigrating CA but I can't see that happening here (Houston).

If it did what would happen if the driver told the cop he now felt unsafe and was subsequently assaulted after the cop left? After all, maybe you didn't feel unsafe before but now you have a drunken pax you have called the cops on. Not a great situation.

Seems like a good way to get the PD sued, or at tbe least some very bad publicity.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I don't want to sound like I'm denigrating CA but I can't see that happening here (Houston).
> 
> If it did what would happen if the driver told the cop he now felt unsafe and was subsequently assaulted after the cop left? After all, maybe you didn't feel unsafe before but now you have a drunken pax you have called the cops on. Not a great situation.
> 
> Seems like a good way to get the PD sued, or at tbe least some very bad publicity.


This happened years ago 
At the same time there were other ocations were the cop took my side and made people exit immediately

Keep in mind if rider is drunk enough once taken out by cop , the drunk becomes police liability 
Police will need to get another cab or family to drive him home if not cop has to take him to the drunk tank

Imagine this guy has a good lawyer ??
Now there is basis for having a lawsuit

At lest in taxi there is a reasonable expectation of service from city , it's on the regulations look it up it varies from city to city


----------



## 20yearsdriving

http://abc7ny.com/news/cab-driver-f...family-picking-up-white-women-instead/908902/


----------



## 20yearsdriving




----------



## observer

D Town said:


> Wait...so if I'm a criminal all I have to do is bring a frivoulous lawsuit against my victim and I can use that as leverage to get a lighter sentence for my crimes? That's not what you're hoping for, is it?


Yea, you're right.

Put him in the slammer!


----------



## 20yearsdriving

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/why-i-still-get-shunned-by-taxi-drivers/411583/


----------



## observer

I just had a thought......

What if he gets freeway clean up duty? Every time he picks up a Taco Bell wrapper he's going to go D'OH!


----------



## steel108

The fact that Uber advertises "Your own *private* driver," pretty much screws the driver over. Riders can't be taped or recorded without permission in a private car. Unless Uber has something in their boilerplate language for riders allowing such things, rider will win.

I doubt the driver can even afford the lawyer for the lawsuit; no attorney will take it without a retainer. Driver is pretty screwed.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

RockinEZ said:


> I was actually on a jury that ignored the law and found a man not guilty. It is legal and you are correct. Most people do not know that a jury can ignore the law if it appears inappropriate.


Laws often end up being changed that way when enough juries decide to ignore them.

But it can also be a really bad thing, for example in the case of Emmett Till. There were other similar cases in the South, just not as publicized. Of course most never even made it to trial.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

steel108 said:


> The fact that Uber advertises "Your own *private* driver," pretty much screws the driver over. Riders can't be taped or recorded without permission in a private car. Unless Uber has something in their boilerplate language for riders allowing such things, rider will win.
> 
> I doubt the driver can even afford the lawyer for the lawsuit; no attorney will take it without a retainer. Driver is pretty screwed.


What Uber advertises does not legally define what the driver IS. Lyft and Uber are exactly the same service, yet their catchphrases are very different.

Plus Uber also says that they are not part of the transaction. They only introduce the parties and handle the billing.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

RockinEZ said:


> I am guessing it is the act of capturing audio that needs two party permission.


Glad I'm in a one party state.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

20yearsdriving said:


> I get it
> What I read here tells me some uber drivers wish to educate / punish the drunks
> I'm with you guys , but it makes no sense Drunks don't give a crap
> 
> The Taco Bell guy should go to jail
> 
> But imagine the driver was your employee ?? That hot head driver is a liability , driver is in the wrong bussiness
> 
> Trust me time & courts will confirm what I'm saying
> All the scenarios listed in this forum have all ready happened numerous times
> It's not going to change the outcome
> 
> I'm going to post a scenario you won't believe
> 
> I'm ending a ride early Drunk refuses to exit my cab , I call the cops
> Drunk knew his stuff he demanded to either be taken to his destination or taken back to point of origin
> He claimed we were " engaged " since I showed up to pick him up & let him in my car
> Cop said he had a point
> He said I was not obligated to drive him anywhere BUT it was best I call another cab for him, cop refused to make him exit ??
> Because riders said , I'm not refusing to exit , but have a reasonable expectation of resolution
> Cop agreed with him
> 
> And this incident has happened to many other drivers
> 
> Cop Can use "discretion "


If he were my employee he'd be better trained.

Oh, no, got that wrong: He'd BE trained.


----------



## wethepeople

20yearsdriving said:


> I get it
> What I read here tells me some uber drivers wish to educate / punish the drunks
> I'm with you guys , but it makes no sense Drunks don't give a crap
> 
> The Taco Bell guy should go to jail
> 
> But imagine the driver was your employee ?? That hot head driver is a liability , driver is in the wrong bussiness
> 
> Trust me time & courts will confirm what I'm saying
> All the scenarios listed in this forum have all ready happened numerous times
> It's not going to change the outcome
> 
> I'm going to post a scenario you won't believe
> 
> I'm ending a ride early Drunk refuses to exit my cab , I call the cops
> Drunk knew his stuff he demanded to either be taken to his destination or taken back to point of origin
> He claimed we were " engaged " since I showed up to pick him up & let him in my car
> Cop said he had a point
> He said I was not obligated to drive him anywhere BUT it was best I call another cab for him, cop refused to make him exit ??
> Because riders said , I'm not refusing to exit , but have a reasonable expectation of resolution
> Cop agreed with him
> 
> And this incident has happened to many other drivers
> 
> Cop Can use "discretion "


what? you said you had the situation where a passenger said you either HAVE TO drive him to his destination OR the point where you picked him up?? Maybe I missunderstood you but, that's not true.

You should still act responsible and care as well.
Means not to drop off a drunk girl in the dark and the middle of nowhere.
I had to kick out a drunk b"tch in Hollywood, she really overstretched my patience then I pulled up to a gas station (VIDEO EVIDENCE, ALWAYS MAKE SURE THERE ARE CAMS !) and asked her to leave my car.

I'm willing to go the extra mile, but I won't touch dogpoop with my bare hands.


----------



## D Town

20yearsdriving said:


> I get it
> What I read here tells me some uber drivers wish to educate / punish the drunks
> I'm with you guys , but it makes no sense Drunks don't give a crap
> 
> The Taco Bell guy should go to jail
> 
> But imagine the driver was your employee ?? That hot head driver is a liability , driver is in the wrong bussiness
> 
> Trust me time & courts will confirm what I'm saying
> All the scenarios listed in this forum have all ready happened numerous times
> It's not going to change the outcome
> 
> I'm going to post a scenario you won't believe
> 
> I'm ending a ride early Drunk refuses to exit my cab , I call the cops
> Drunk knew his stuff he demanded to either be taken to his destination or taken back to point of origin
> He claimed we were " engaged " since I showed up to pick him up & let him in my car
> Cop said he had a point
> He said I was not obligated to drive him anywhere BUT it was best I call another cab for him, cop refused to make him exit ??
> Because riders said , I'm not refusing to exit , but have a reasonable expectation of resolution
> Cop agreed with him
> 
> And this incident has happened to many other drivers
> 
> Cop Can use "discretion "


That cop was talking out of his a$$ and you should have asked for a supervisor. I once had a cop swear up and down that it wasn't legal or safe for me to have a bullet chambered in the gun I was carrying. How had to be pushing 65. I can't imagine a cop being on the force that long and being THAT ignorant of laws which told me all I needed to know. HE had the badge, HE was the law, and the situation was going to go whatever why amused him. Not the first time I've seen it with authority figures and it won't be the last.



20yearsdriving said:


> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/why-i-still-get-shunned-by-taxi-drivers/411583/


Interesting story. Should have its own thread.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Fuzzyelvis said:


> If it's considered a commercial vehicle do there need to be signs in CA? Are there signs on buses? Do buses record audio or just video?
> 
> What about nanny cams? If it's a private vehicle then it's no different from your house. If nanny cams are ok in CA I would think a pax cam would be. The whole point of nanny cams is that they're hidden.
> 
> As a ridiculous argument, if he got in the car with a child and the camera recorded sound and video of him sexually groping that child while the driver was not looking (stopped for gas perhaps), and the driver saw it later and turned it into the police, would there be a lawsuit there? Would it be admissible?
> 
> Can a pax do anything illegal they want in an uber and the video and/or audio is not legal and/or not admissible?
> 
> Is everyone without signs "illegally taping"?
> 
> BTW I have never had any expectation of privacy in a cab. If you wouldn't do/say something (to a stranger!) you knew would be taped, then why would you do/say it at all?


This isnt rocket science.

It makes no difference if the car is private or public. All that matters is the location.

Houses are private. Public places are public.

Its really simple. I love how some people want to attach the word "private" randomly to the car and act like that changes the law.

If the car was owned by a "private" company you'd argue that makes it illegal to be recorded. No.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Lol so now people want to say the fact that hes considered a "private" driver made it illegal ? Lmao

Some people have no common sense at all. It's really no wonder OJ got off with people like that on the jury. Spending too much time keeping up with the Kardashians is bad for your health.


----------



## D Town

uberdriverfornow said:


> This isnt rocket science.
> 
> It makes no difference if the car is private or public. All that matters is the location.
> 
> Houses are private. Public places are public.
> 
> Its really simple. I love how some people want to attach the word "private" randomly to the car and act like that changes the law.
> 
> If the car was owned by a "private" company you'd argue that makes it illegal to be recorded. No.


The only real ambiguity I found in my research was RV's. I found that IF they were up on blocks and/or connected to utilities they were considered homes and got all of the same protections. If they were not they were considered vehicles. Interesting and confusing.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Fuzzyelvis said:


> If it's considered a commercial vehicle do there need to be signs in CA? Are there signs on buses? Do buses record audio or just video?
> 
> What about nanny cams? If it's a private vehicle then it's no different from your house. If nanny cams are ok in CA I would think a pax cam would be. The whole point of nanny cams is that they're hidden.
> 
> As a ridiculous argument, if he got in the car with a child and the camera recorded sound and video of him sexually groping that child while the driver was not looking (stopped for gas perhaps), and the driver saw it later and turned it into the police, would there be a lawsuit there? Would it be admissible?
> 
> Can a pax do anything illegal they want in an uber and the video and/or audio is not legal and/or not admissible?
> 
> Is everyone without signs "illegally taping"?
> 
> BTW I have never had any expectation of privacy in a cab. If you wouldn't do/say something (to a stranger!) you knew would be taped, then why would you do/say it at all?


Are buses in public places or private places ?


----------



## D Town

uberdriverfornow said:


> Are buses in public places or private places ?


Its public transit so public.


----------



## phillipzx3

Tim In Cleveland said:


> People are saying elsewhere that it has been proven time and again that you have no expectation of privacy in a cab and an Uber is essentially similar. Creep loses.


But it's not the same as a cab. If it were, Uber cars would be branded like a cab and be required to carry the same insurance as a cab (or any other livery service). This is what happens when a person tries to use a private vehicle for commercial purposes.

Cabs have stickers all over their windows announcing you are being photographed.

Also....by the driver releasing this video to the public ( it should have gone to the cops and nowhere else) the driver screwed himself.


----------



## Baby Cakes

Golden claims it was "apparent to Mr. Caban that Mr. Golden was intoxicated when he picked him up, yet he continued to allow Mr. Golden inside his vehicle." Picking up drunks is our job...


----------



## 20yearsdriving

D Town said:


> That cop was talking out of his a$$ and you should have asked for a supervisor. I once had a cop swear up and down that it wasn't legal or safe for me to have a bullet chambered in the gun I was carrying. How had to be pushing 65. I can't imagine a cop being on the force that long and being THAT ignorant of laws which told me all I needed to know. HE had the badge, HE was the law, and the situation was going to go whatever why amused him. Not the first time I've seen it with authority figures and it won't be the last.
> 
> Interesting story. Should have its own thread.


Key word "discretion"

I'm not eager to take it far against the cop


----------



## Demon

uberdriverfornow said:


> This isnt rocket science.
> 
> It makes no difference if the car is private or public. All that matters is the location.
> 
> Houses are private. Public places are public.
> 
> Its really simple. I love how some people want to attach the word "private" randomly to the car and act like that changes the law.
> 
> If the car was owned by a "private" company you'd argue that makes it illegal to be recorded. No.


So a cop never needs a warrant to search your car?


----------



## ORT

You all do know that he will not receive one penny, and most likely will have to pay his and the drivers legal fees, after the driver sues him for assault.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

wethepeople said:


> what? you said you had the situation where a passenger said you either HAVE TO drive him to his destination OR the point where you picked him up?? Maybe I missunderstood you but, that's not true.
> 
> You should still act responsible and care as well.
> Means not to drop off a drunk girl in the dark and the middle of nowhere.
> I had to kick out a drunk b"tch in Hollywood, she really overstretched my patience then I pulled up to a gas station (VIDEO EVIDENCE, ALWAYS MAKE SURE THERE ARE CAMS !) and asked her to leave my car.
> 
> I'm willing to go the extra mile, but I won't touch dogpoop with my bare hands.


Legally I can not touch the passenger , cop won't make him exit

Guess what he will stay in your vehicle a while longer than you want

You're immediacy will be irrelevant

Good news you can excercice your right to refuse to drive him , that is it

You are "engaged"with the passenger

Plan on sitting there till the other cab shows up

Don't like it ? Take it on with the PD


----------



## D Town

phillipzx3 said:


> But it's not the same as a cab. If it were, Uber cars would be branded like a cab and be required to carry the same insurance as a cab (or any other livery service). This is what happens when a person tries to use a private vehicle for commercial purposes.
> 
> Cabs have stickers all over their windows announcing you are being photographed.
> 
> Also....by the driver releasing this video to the public ( it should have gone to the cops and nowhere else) the driver screwed himself.


Didn't say Uber was regulated like taxis I - and the government - say and classify it as public transportation.

_"The term "public transportation" applies to a wide variety of 
transportation services available to the public including bus service, 
rail, express bus, passenger and auto ferries, and rideshare services 
such as carpools and vanpools."_

https://archive.org/stream/guidetolandusep9013snoh_0/guidetolandusep9013snoh_0_djvu.txt

Thus, no expectation of privacy.



Demon said:


> So a cop never needs a warrant to search your car?


Not if contraband rolls out from under your seat into plain view, no.


----------



## D Town

20yearsdriving said:


> Legally I can not touch the passenger , cop won't make him exit
> 
> Guess what he will stay in your vehicle a while longer than you want
> 
> You're immediacy will be irrelevant
> 
> Good news you can excercice your right to refuse to drive him , that is it
> 
> You are "engaged"with the passenger
> 
> Plan on sitting there till the other cab shows up
> 
> Don't like it ? Take it on with the PD


I've seen more than one video of cops taking passengers who refused to leave out of drivers vehicles. If you want I can find one and post it. That cop just decided to be a di*k to you. That doesn't make it the law.


----------



## Demon

D Town said:


> Didn't say Uber was regulated like taxis I - and the government - say and classify it as public transportation.
> 
> _"The term "public transportation" applies to a wide variety of
> transportation services available to the public including bus service,
> rail, express bus, passenger and auto ferries, and rideshare services
> such as carpools and vanpools."_
> 
> https://archive.org/stream/guidetolandusep9013snoh_0/guidetolandusep9013snoh_0_djvu.txt
> 
> Thus, no expectation of privacy.
> 
> Not if contraband rolls out from under your seat into plain view, no.


You're not answering the question I asked.


----------



## D Town

Demon said:


> You're not answering the question I asked.


About warrants to search cars? 3 seconds on google or 5 minutes of any cop show would tell you that yes they need a warrant to search your car. What does the legality of a car search have to do with this exactly? Are you trying to assert that a rider who has hired you suddenly has the same rights as you to your car? Are you suddenly forgetting that its been pointed out that that is NOT the case?


----------



## Hunt to Eat

This Ben Golden cat just continues to embarrass himself and show the world what kind of a ******bag he is. Yeah, like an Uber driver could pay a settlement any greater than $175. Gimme a friggin' break. Thankfully, this frivolous suit will go nowhere.


----------



## Demon

D Town said:


> About warrants to search cars? 3 seconds on google or 5 minutes of any cop show would tell you that yes they need a warrant to search your car. What does the legality of a car search have to do with this exactly? Are you trying to assert that a rider who has hired you suddenly has the same rights as you to your car? Are you suddenly forgetting that its been pointed out that that is NOT the case?


I think you know exactly what I mean which is why you didn't want to answer my question at first. Your car is a private vehicle, it is not public. A cop doesn't need a warrant to get into a bus, train or ferry because those things are public. A cop does need a warrant (or at least reasonable suspicion) to get into a private vehicle.


----------



## Huberis

D Town said:


> I've seen more than one video of cops taking passengers who refused to leave out of drivers vehicles. If you want I can find one and post it. That cop just decided to be a di*k to you. That doesn't make it the law.


I have had the police pull passengers from the back seat several times over the course of 15 years. the police have always taken that very serious. One pax came very close of having the police charge him with criminal trespass.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

D Town said:


> I've seen more than one video of cops taking passengers who refused to leave out of drivers vehicles. If you want I can find one and post it. That cop just decided to be a di*k to you. That doesn't make it the law.


I agree
I said in a earlier reply
Other times cop makes passenger exit immediately

Officer "discretion"

He can determine who is being unreasonable
And procced accordingly

Unreasonable
90% of times will be the drunk
10% the driver

The Taco Bell video should be part of a training video

What happened in that video is a real possibility , uber should teach drivers how to de-escalate similar situations
And should have a blue print of how to terminate a ride early if necessary according to many variables

The problem is drivers want to bring their tiara
To a job you pretty much you need a helmet for

Let's come back at this tread when courts decide

You saw the video taxi guy lost in court
He said the passenger was aggressive towards him , that defense did not work

Ride share will find it hard to win courts over
With their excuses
We are not a transportation company nor drivers, nor we have vehicles nor we actually exist

You know well you will fall under court precedent
All excuses go out the window


----------



## D Town

Demon said:


> I think you know exactly what I mean which is why you didn't want to answer my question at first. Your car is a private vehicle, it is not public. A cop doesn't need a warrant to get into a bus, train or ferry because those things are public. A cop does need a warrant (or at least reasonable suspicion) to get into a private vehicle.


Didn't want to answer? If you look at my activity I am posting in a couple of threads quoting a few different people on different topics. Sorry if your one line question addressing something obvious that vaguely linked to something you posted a few pages back didn't immediately have me connecting your dots which are separated by gaping holes you're furiously ignoring.

*Gaping hole 1:* You have no expectation of privacy on public transportation.

It finally seems you're starting to let that go though you won't SAY that in case you run into a wall and need to back track and just start arguing - once again - that rideshare ISN'T public transportation in the hope that I'll get frustrated and give up.

*Gaping hole 2:* Passengers do not have the same rights to your car as you do.

I've covered this. You ignored it once so let me go back, copy, and paste it once again.

Passengers in a car have been held to NOT have a fourth amendment claim to an expectation of privacy.
_
*"However, the court also noted that "a mere passenger in a vehicle already stopped has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle‟s interior.""*_

http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=lawreview

Bolded and in red so you can see it this time.

Anything else? Are we done now?


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Hunt to Eat said:


> This Ben Golden cat just continues to embarrass himself and show the world what kind of a ******bag he is. Yeah, like an Uber driver could pay a settlement any greater than $175. Gimme a friggin' break. Thankfully, this frivolous suit will go nowhere.


Each uber driver should donate 3 bucks to the cause
Time to walk the walk


----------



## Demon

D Town said:


> Didn't want to answer? If you look at my activity I am posting in a couple of threads quoting a few different people on different topics. Sorry if your one line question addressing something obvious that vaguely linked to something you posted a few pages back didn't immediately have me connecting your dots which are separated by gaping holes you're furiously ignoring.
> 
> *Gaping hole 1:* You have no expectation of privacy on public transportation.
> 
> It finally seems you're starting to let that go though you won't SAY that in case you run into a wall and need to back track and just start arguing - once again - that rideshare ISN'T public transportation in the hope that I'll get frustrated and give up.
> 
> *Gaping hole 2:* Passengers do not have the same rights to your car as you do.
> 
> I've covered this. You ignored it once so let me go back, copy, and paste it once again.
> 
> Passengers in a car have been held to NOT have a fourth amendment claim to an expectation of privacy.
> _
> *"However, the court also noted that "a mere passenger in a vehicle already stopped has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle‟s interior.""*_
> 
> http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=lawreview
> 
> Bolded and in red so you can see it this time.
> 
> Anything else? Are we done now?


Done? You've never started. 
I've ignored nothing, I previously addressed this & you think by typing it bigger it somehow makes it less wrong. You citing a case that has nothing to do with this one. The government can't search your car without a warrant or reasonable suspicion. That does not mean that a privately owned vehicle is owned by the public. It does not mean you can record someone in a private vehicle without their consent. It does not mean a passenger has more rights to your car than you do.

The two points you're insisting on have nothing to do with this case. You can't record someone in a private vehicle without consent. Until you realize that you don't have a point to make.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Let me give you guys another Real case that may help bring perspective

Hotel has a favorite taxi company 
They want their guest to only do business with their favorite company 

Play with me here I guatatee you a interesting outcome 

Can they do that ?


----------



## wethepeople

20yearsdriving said:


> Legally I can not touch the passenger , cop won't make him exit
> 
> Guess what he will stay in your vehicle a while longer than you want
> 
> You're immediacy will be irrelevant
> 
> Good news you can excercice your right to refuse to drive him , that is it
> 
> You are "engaged"with the passenger
> 
> Plan on sitting there till the other cab shows up
> 
> Don't like it ? Take it on with the PD


Back in my taxi years I had this situation several times and the cops ALWAYS helped !
In most cases I did not touch the passenger and it happened pretty much in busy areas, where cops are there in less than 2 minutes.

But I also had some different experiences before the time we had cellphones just radios..
One very ignorant guy refused to leave after he acted like a dou-che, I drove him to a construction site at night (but I was much younger) Long story short he thought he's gonna die there and he started crying like a little baby begging for his life.
I asked him to leave and he repeatedly did not. So what ? I am not allowed to drive anywhere I want in my own car just because he's not leaving?? I was just in the mood for that construction site and he always had the opportunity to leave my car somewhere more comfortable.
Let him bring it to court.

Some of those people just don't realize that one day a crazy sick mother****er might just snap and pull out something different than just pepperspray, and there are places even in the cities where no one hears them screaming and begging.
Places where it takes days until they are found.

I always act respectful, in traffic and in daily life. You never know how sick the other guy might be. maybe he has nothing to loose and was just waiting for someone like you.
*
Long story short : if you're in trouble with a passenger always call police they are here to help and well trained to handle situations like that.*


----------



## 20yearsdriving

wethepeople said:


> Back in my taxi years I had this situation several times and the cops ALWAYS helped !
> In most cases I did not touch the passenger and it happened pretty much in busy areas, where cops are there in less than 2 minutes.
> 
> But I also had some different experiences before the time we had cellphones just radios..
> One very ignorant guy refused to leave after he acted like a dou-che, I drove him to a construction site at night (but I was much younger) Long story short he thought he's gonna die there and he started crying like a little baby begging for his life.
> 
> Some of those people just don't realize that one day a crazy sick mother****er might just snap and pull out something different than just pepperspray, and there are places even in the cities where no one hears them screaming and begging.
> Places where it takes days until they are found.
> 
> I always act respectful, in traffic and in daily life. You never know how sick the other guy might be. maybe he has nothing to loose and was just waiting for someone like you.
> *
> Long story short : if you're in trouble with a passenger always call police they are here to help and well trained to handle situations like that.*


15 years in taxi , tail end of crack epidemic , only called cops 5% of the time rider gave trouble , the other 95% I " handled "
Believe me I know what you mean

You know Now days it's very different

At this stage of life I have a bussiness approach to driving 
I'm accounting for a lose ends & liability

Some one laughed when I posted the # 1 thing to be careful with :
Running over your customers foot with your car

Guess what a year later I read here in the forum 
Running over customers foot was top 5 insurance claim for uber

WHY DOES NOT UBER SEND DRIVERS A MEMO ??!!

I've never done it thank good , people have to go thru the trouble before they learn
I can save you 15 years of learning

P.S. 
This bussiness will never ever adapt to your likes 
You better adapt & be proactive , or get a frivolous lawsuit coming your way 
What a stupid & expensive way to prove a point

Odds of your freakish mentality prevailing : low 
It's time to grow up , think big , act big 
You are more of a taxi driver or bartender than a librarian or barista


----------



## sellkatsell44

20yearsdriving said:


> Legally I can not touch the passenger , cop won't make him exit
> 
> Guess what he will stay in your vehicle a while longer than you want
> 
> You're immediacy will be irrelevant
> 
> Good news you can excercice your right to refuse to drive him , that is it
> 
> You are "engaged"with the passenger
> 
> Plan on sitting there till the other cab shows up
> 
> Don't like it ? Take it on with the PD


If the passenger won't leave and the trip is still in progress why not drive around in circles until he or she says uncle? Might as well be compensated for it. *Better yet, drive them to the police station.*

If uber tries to take the fee back, that's where having your dashboard is handy and the conversation of, you're here--and the passenger refusing to exit. Hey, you're ubers B and they want to make sure they get compensated

PS, if I could tell a black chick whose twice my size and got about a foot on me, to put the bag back (we are in front of the store no less, and no, no security guards) and she did; you'll be surprised if you ask the passenger to leave, they probably will. They may key your car on the way, but that's another story.



Demon said:


> Done? You've never started.
> I've ignored nothing, I previously addressed this & you think by typing it bigger it somehow makes it less wrong. You citing a case that has nothing to do with this one. The government can't search your car without a warrant or reasonable suspicion. That does not mean that a privately owned vehicle is owned by the public. It does not mean you can record someone in a private vehicle without their consent. It does not mean a passenger has more rights to your car than you do.
> 
> The two points you're insisting on have nothing to do with this case. You can't record someone in a private vehicle without consent. Until you realize that you don't have a point to make.


They can't, but they can come up with a reasonable suspicion later.

Even the police be asking, whose gonna police the police.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Demon said:


> The two points you're insisting on have nothing to do with this case. You can't record someone in a private vehicle without consent. Until you realize that you don't have a point to make.


seems like a judge will decide this before it goes to court



sellkatsell44 said:


> If the passenger won't leave and the trip is still in progress why not drive around in circles until he or she says uncle? Might as well be compensated for it. *Better yet, drive them to the police station.*
> .


If my safety is in question im not driving him no where. I can't believe just because someone orders an Uber they have the right to take over your car and sit in it indefinitely. Some type of trespassing has to be going on


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Bart McCoy said:


> seems like a judge will decide this before it goes to court
> 
> If my safety is in question im not driving him no where. I can't believe just because someone orders an Uber they have the right to take over your car and sit in it indefinitely. Some type of trespassing has to be going on


Magical toggle switch controlled by a temperamental driver

I like you , I like you not

Poffff rider dispears from back seat


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Demon said:


> So a cop never needs a warrant to search your car?


Yes they do need a warrant.

But what does the 4th amendment have to do with this thread ?

Holy mother of derailment, Batman.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

uberdriverfornow said:


> Yes they do need a warrant.
> 
> But what does the 4th amendment have to do with this thread ?
> 
> Holy mother of derailment, Batman.


These uber incidents going to court are very important 
It will set the record straight 
I think this one of the few valuable treads here


----------



## 20yearsdriving

I'll end my posting to this tread with
My prediction on overall issues going to court:
Both rider & passeger rights & freedoms are "altered" by "willfully" "engaging" in a business transaction
And some " responsibility "/ "liability " is aquired by both parties


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Watch this one ^^^^^ its gold


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Bob Reynolds said:


> The Taco Bell executive that attacked the Uber driver and was fired is now suing the Uber driver for $5 million dollars.
> 
> What a nice guy!
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/15/ex-taco-bell-exec-now-suing-uber-driver-for-5-million.html


POST # 1/Bob Reynolds: Q U ' E L L E
SUPRISE ! Bostonian
Bison would like to Thank You for this
Hyperlinked CNBC Story of Interest to
A-B TNC Drivers Internationally.

This News Threadstarting is also an
Honorific Bestowed upon the Single
Most Influential UPNF Member, Our
Own #1 Notable chi1cabby . His
Marathon of Public Service to the
Membership, now extends 19.5 months
and Totals 9 4 0 1 News Posts, mostly
in Thread Format, a Body of Work that
above all has "shone a light upon..."
#[F]Uber's "...Bottomless Duplicity."

This Humble Taxi Driver has made
UPNF what it is Today. Be sure to
Thank "St. Comity of Chicago" at your
Earliest Opportunity.

Mentoring Bison: Thanks chi1cabby!


----------



## Scenicruiser

The whole issue needs to be settled in a rematch. Taco Bell guy, sober and the uber guy ready and standing. Scheduled during the LCT, (limousine, charter, and tour)show in Las Vegas this Febuary and available on HBO for a small fee.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

uberdriverfornow said:


> This isnt rocket science.
> 
> It makes no difference if the car is private or public. All that matters is the location.
> 
> Houses are private. Public places are public.
> 
> Its really simple. I love how some people want to attach the word "private" randomly to the car and act like that changes the law.
> 
> If the car was owned by a "private" company you'd argue that makes it illegal to be recorded. No.


I'm not arguing anything. I asked a bunch of questions.

Since in many places the castle law applies to your vehicle, it seems strange you can shoot someone who tries to break into it but you can't tape them there. If you can on your house, why not your car?


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Dhaval Panara said:


> Actually I am surprised it took him this long to File a Law Suit. I was expecting this the Day I saw the Video. I know that this is messed up but the Drive was at Fault for not consenting with the Rider that he being Recording worse Audio Recorded as well. I work in CCTV Industry and you need to make sure that you put clear signs of any recording devices specially audio when in your property. Most probably the Drive will lose this case. I really hope his lawyer comes out with a smart way to save him. For other Dash Cam users who have Cameras facing in the Customer make sure that they know they are being recorded specially Audio (CA highly with Audio).


POST # 16/Dhaval Panara: Thank You
for your Industry
Insider.perspective. Since I regularly
recommend DashCam usage for ALL
Drivers, what would be YOUR Advice
on "Appropriate Notification" ? Some
Signage, of course. How much & where
posted ? Verbal Announcement to PAX ?
Is there a Hyperlinked Website to share
with Regulations for the 50 States ?

Bison: Politely curious. Curiously polite.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

RightTurnClyde said:


> Haha, but where would Caban the uber driver be without that video (considering the attention and legal win it got)? I'd rather have a cam than not have one during any criminal actions committed against me. Even if dash cameras were totally against the law (it's not) I'd still have one. Then again, I believe Taco Bell boy is not suing for being filmed, he's suing because Caban put it on YouTube thus defaming him to a worldwide audience that cost him everything. You can sue anyone for any reason you want; proving your case in regards to the specifics of the law is a different thing altogether so in my opinion his lawsuit is just a load of crap, from a pos individual.


POST # 25/RightTurnClyde: Your Avatar
reminds me of
that Clint Eastwood movie, "Every which
way, but Loose". Daniel Golden needs
an Orangutan-Powered DopeSlap!

Mentoring Bison: Jeeping. It. 100%. REAL!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

D Town said:


> The only real ambiguity I found in my research was RV's. I found that IF they were up on blocks and/or connected to utilities they were considered homes and got all of the same protections. If they were not they were considered vehicles. Interesting and confusing.


There have been many cases where homeless people living under bridges, in cardboard boxes etc have argued the police searched them illegally without a warrant. Law and Order even did an episode based on it. The courts have been very divided on that.

These sorts of things are not always clear cut. The TNC model of calling a "cab" which is in fact also a private vehicle is not necessarily going to fit into previous definitions of "Commercial" vs. "Private" vehicles. And if the driver is living in it, all bets are off.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

20yearsdriving said:


> Legally I can not touch the passenger , cop won't make him exit
> 
> Guess what he will stay in your vehicle a while longer than you want
> 
> You're immediacy will be irrelevant
> 
> Good news you can excercice your right to refuse to drive him , that is it
> 
> You are "engaged"with the passenger
> 
> Plan on sitting there till the other cab shows up
> 
> Don't like it ? Take it on with the PD


Well if it's uber you just go to a nice long drive thru and get yourself a meal. When he complains about the route you tell uber you didn't want to go there but he insisted and you were just providing good customer service.

Yes it's not worth the money but at least hell have to pay for being a jerk.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

uberdriverfornow said:


> Yes they do need a warrant.
> 
> But what does the 4th amendment have to do with this thread ?
> 
> Holy mother of derailment, Batman.


Well its part of the issue of what control you have over your vehicle.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

D Town said:


> Passengers in a car have been held to NOT have a fourth amendment claim to an expectation of privacy.
> _
> "However, the court also noted that "a mere passenger in a vehicle already stopped has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle‟s interior.""_
> 
> http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=lawreview


POST # 60/D Town: Thank You for
this Cogent Hyperlinked
Information in a Thread where under-
standing "The Particulars" is KEY.

How is it that chi1cabby hasn't
weighed in yet ? Did I speak too soon?

Bison: Paging "St. Comity of Chicago".


----------



## D Town

Demon said:


> Done? You've never started.
> I've ignored nothing, I previously addressed this & you think by typing it bigger it somehow makes it less wrong. You citing a case that has nothing to do with this one. The government can't search your car without a warrant or reasonable suspicion. That does not mean that a privately owned vehicle is owned by the public. It does not mean you can record someone in a private vehicle without their consent. It does not mean a passenger has more rights to your car than you do.
> 
> The two points you're insisting on have nothing to do with this case. You can't record someone in a private vehicle without consent. Until you realize that you don't have a point to make.


So we're taking the route of just denying the inconvenient evidence has validity without explaining why approach, huh? I'm going to be generous and assume you're not just trolling at this point and try to have you explain that one. I'll start with a few questions you can answer yes or no to - you won't do that but I'll ask any way...

1. Rideshare - Uber, Lyft, etc - is public transportation, correct?


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

20yearsdriving said:


> http://m.fox8live.com/wvuefox8/db/353017/content/PSZ7rpS5/gallery


POST # 102/20yearsdriving: F.Y.I.: Your
Fox8Live Hyperlink
connects with over a Dozen Stories, none
of which seem to relate to Taxi or A-B TNC
Regulations or Practices.

Bison: Sorry....SMH.


----------



## D Town

Fuzzyelvis said:


> There have been many cases where homeless people living under bridges, in cardboard boxes etc have argued the police searched them illegally without a warrant. Law and Order even did an episode based on it. The courts have been very divided on that.
> 
> These sorts of things are not always clear cut. The TNC model of calling a "cab" which is in fact also a private vehicle is not necessarily going to fit into previous definitions of "Commercial" vs. "Private" vehicles. And if the driver is living in it, all bets are off.


Never heard of the homeless thing. Sounds very interesting and I'll take a look at that later. As for the whole private vs commercial thing your "private" vehicle is no longer a "private" vehicle while in the course of using it for "commercial" purposes. Once you start accepting money for trips in your car new rules apply. Same as when someone opens a daycare in their house and still have to get licensed and inspected by the authorities or when a plumber buys a pickup truck to haul his stuff around but still picks up the kids and does a whole lot of other non-business activities in it. The rules that apply depend on the activity being conducted.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 102/20yearsdriving: F.Y.I.: Your
> Fox8Live Hyperlink
> connects with over a Dozen Stories, none
> of which seem to relate to Taxi or A-B TNC
> Regulations or Practices.
> 
> Bison: Sorry....SMH.


Fixed


----------



## ORT

At the end of the day, who really cares, don't you guys have more important things to do, like picking up those dirt cheap Uber fares. You are all arguing over nothing, this will be settled in court, now Uber on.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

20yearsdriving said:


> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/why-i-still-get-shunned-by-taxi-drivers/411583/


POST # 104/20yearsdriving: I am going
to Agree with
"Well-Known" D Town and recommend
to 19th Notable Member 20yearsdriving 
that the Fairly Lengthy, but extremely
detailed mini-memoir by Atlantic Writer
Doug Glanville is a Threadworthy Topic.

Bison Admires.
Bison Inspires!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I'm not arguing anything. I asked a bunch of questions.
> 
> Since in many places the castle law applies to your vehicle, it seems strange you can shoot someone who tries to break into it but you can't tape them there. If you can on your house, why not your car?


If I contract to rent out a room in my home to someone - and then shoot them for entering my house - no castle law is going to portect me from liability. Now, if you car is an extension of your house, it follows logically that once you entered into a ride contract, the castle doctrine no longer applies to your car.


----------



## ORT

So many Uber/Drivers/Lawyers in this forum, seriously, who gives a rats rear end.


----------



## ABC123DEF

ORT said:


> At the end of the day, who really cares, don't you guys have more important things to do, like picking up those dirt cheap Uber fares. You are all arguing over nothing, this will be settled in court, now Uber on.


We're not making any money picking up passengers...so allow us the small luxury of coming in here to stir up sh*t. This is a lot more cost effective!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

ORT said:


> So many Uber/Drivers/Lawyers in this forum, seriously, who gives a rats rear end.


lol! who wastes their time to reply to a thread to complain that they don't care about the thread?


----------



## billybengal

Bob Reynolds said:


> The Taco Bell executive that attacked the Uber driver and was fired is now suing the Uber driver for $5 million dollars.
> 
> What a nice guy!
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/15/ex-taco-bell-exec-now-suing-uber-driver-for-5-million.html


Hi,

I am looking for a ride but I require that the driver has a dash cam, pointed in my direction and the driver is a non violet person, prefferably under 150 lbs and does not carry any weapons in his vehicle and does not practice any martial arts.

Thank you and God Bless American Justice System!!!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If I contract to rent out a room in my home to someone - and then shoot them for entering my house - no castle law is going to portect me from liability. Now, if you car is an extension of your house, it follows logically that once you entered into a ride contract, the castle doctrine no longer applies to your car.


There are rules about kicking someone out once they've achieved "residency" however if it is a short term arrangement and you decide to terminate it by only charging them up until the moment you change your mind you CAN kick them out.

If they refuse they are at that point trespassing. (If you don't believe that, throw a tantrum in a hotel and then see what happens when they tell you to leave and you don't).

Could you shoot them and get away with it? Who knows? That's the whole point of this discussion. By the way, this is not about shooting them when they ealk in DURING the contract. This is about once they have been told it has been terminated. Your example doesnt apply IMO.

You CAN shoot trespassers depending on where you are. I wouldn't want to be the test case though.

The thing is, this is a new model of transportation. It's somewhere between public and private. So it will be interesting to see what courts decide in these cases (and there will be more).


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

billybengal said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am looking for a ride but I require that the driver has a dash cam, pointed in my direction and the driver is a non violet person, prefferably under 150 lbs and does not carry any weapons in his vehicle and does not practice any martial arts.
> 
> Thank you and God Bless American Justice System!!!


Violet lives matter too!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

D Town said:


> Never heard of the homeless thing. Sounds very interesting and I'll take a look at that later. As for the whole private vs commercial thing your "private" vehicle is no longer a "private" vehicle while in the course of using it for "commercial" purposes. Once you start accepting money for trips in your car new rules apply. Same as when someone opens a daycare in their house and still have to get licensed and inspected by the authorities or when a plumber buys a pickup truck to haul his stuff around but still picks up the kids and does a whole lot of other non-business activities in it. The rules that apply depend on the activity being conducted.


Well if the daycare has a nanny cam recording (maybe primarily to protect the children) and a mom comes to pick up her kid and assaults you, is that video/audio admissible?


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 104/20yearsdriving: I am going
> to Agree with
> "Well-Known" D Town and recommend
> to 19th Notable Member 20yearsdriving
> that the Fairly Lengthy, but extremely
> detailed mini-memoir by Atlantic Writer
> Doug Glanville is a Threadworthy Topic.
> 
> Bison Admires.
> Bison Inspires!


Done


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

D Town said:


> Never heard of the homeless thing. Sounds very interesting and I'll take a look at that later. As for the whole private vs commercial thing your "private" vehicle is no longer a "private" vehicle while in the course of using it for "commercial" purposes. Once you start accepting money for trips in your car new rules apply. Same as when someone opens a daycare in their house and still have to get licensed and inspected by the authorities or when a plumber buys a pickup truck to haul his stuff around but still picks up the kids and does a whole lot of other non-business activities in it. The rules that apply depend on the activity being conducted.


Look up State of Connecticut vs. Mooney. Interesting case.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

ORT said:


> So many Uber/Drivers/Lawyers in this forum, seriously, who gives a rats rear end.


C'mon, at least we can exercise our brains a little. Nice to have a debate on here that is at least somewhat cerebral and hopefully won't descend into name calling.

At least no one's brought up Hitler or Nazis yet!

Oh. Oops.


----------



## D Town

ORT said:


> At the end of the day, who really cares, don't you guys have more important things to do, like picking up those dirt cheap Uber fares. You are all arguing over nothing, this will be settled in court, now Uber on.


Why should we discuss issues pertaining to an industry we all have experience with? Why not? Isn't that the point of this forum?


----------



## D Town

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Well if the daycare has a nanny cam recording (maybe primarily to protect the children) and a mom comes to pick up her kid and assaults you, is that video/audio admissible?


I fail to see why it wouldn't be. If it was just your own private home its admissible. If you walk into a business and assault the owner the video of that assault is admissible too. Why wouldn't they be?


----------



## ORT

D Town said:


> Why should we discuss issues pertaining to an industry we all have experience with? Why not? Isn't that the point of this forum?


Because the news article is hogwash, printed just to print something, there is no substance to the case presented. Any lawyer will take a case just to say they took the case, especially this one so their name is printed. As I said there is no substance to this case and will be thrown out before it makes it to a judges judges desk.


----------



## D Town

ORT said:


> Because the news article is hogwash, printed just to print something, there is no substance to the case presented. Any lawyer will take a case just to say they took the case, especially this one so their name is printed. As I said there is no substance to this case and will be thrown out before it makes it to a judges judges desk.


True, however as you have seen there are those that seem to be under the impression that there somehow IS something to the case. Hashing out their reasoning to see if there is merit to their thought process is not worthless.


----------



## TNC Driver

All jokes aside, the biggest lesson from this cluster is that drivers are the primary liability exposure when driving for Uber. Notice he's not suing Uber (the deep pocket) here. Ride share driving exposes you to all kinds of risk exposure; slips/falls, assault accusations, etc. Couple this with the fact that many drivers operate as sole proprietors ( vs under an LLC) and you are engaging in an activity specially excluded by your auto policy, you could lose everything you have at anytime.


----------



## Body Politic

LOL, I would LOVE the opportunity to get this a-hole and his a-hole lawyer in front of a jury...


----------



## DrivingMyJalopy

Taco Bell, just give me FREE Taco Bell food for the rest of my life..we'll call it even!


----------



## D Town

DrivingMyJalopy said:


> Taco Bell, just give me FREE Taco Bell food for the rest of my life..we'll call it even!


Don't get me wrong, I love Taco Bell but that'd be a short life.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

D Town said:


> I fail to see why it wouldn't be. If it was just your own private home its admissible. If you walk into a business and assault the owner the video of that assault is admissible too. Why wouldn't they be?


That was pretty much my point. But I don't know the laws on nanny cams or taping someone without their permission in your home. Sex tapes come to mind. Are they legal without both parties' consent?


----------



## D Town

Fuzzyelvis said:


> That was pretty much my point. But I don't know the laws on nanny cams or taping someone without their permission in your home. Sex tapes come to mind. Are they legal without both parties' consent?


I'm currently at work so I have no intention of looking up laws on the legality of the distribution of sex tapes (I do NOT want to have THAT discussion with HR...) though I have to imagine it falls under the same legalities as recording someone in a bathroom - which means illegal as hell.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

D Town said:


> I'm currently at work so I have no intention of looking up laws on the legality of the distribution of sex tapes (I do NOT want to have THAT discussion with HR...) though I have to imagine it falls under the same legalities as recording someone in a bathroom - which means illegal as hell.


Well that was my point. I think there ARE limits on what you can record, MAYBE even in your own home. But I honestly don't know. I'm going to bed so maybe I'll look it up tomorrow.

My job blocks EVERYTHING. Often to the point of absurdity. If I even think something will send up a red flag I use my phone.


----------



## Soco

Just curious... How do you sue someone for illegally taping someone while at the same time filing court papers to keep said video OUT AS EVIDENCE in the suit???? I think this lawyer is just as mentally challenged as her client!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

TNC Driver said:


> All jokes aside, the biggest lesson from this cluster is that drivers are the primary liability exposure when driving for Uber. Notice he's not suing Uber (the deep pocket) here. Ride share driving exposes you to all kinds of risk exposure; slips/falls, assault accusations, etc. Couple this with the fact that many drivers operate as sole proprietors ( vs under an LLC) and you are engaging in an activity specially excluded by your auto policy, you could lose everything you have at anytime.


Just a minor and sort of off topic aside: If you are the only partner in an LLC or the sole owner of shares in an S or C Corp, you generally don't have the 'corporate shield' liability protections afforded by a company with multiple shareholders. For individiually owned businesses, those corporate entitities primary function and purpose is tax status and estate planning. It's pretty much a myth that incorporating your self-owned, self-operated business provides any liability shield... but it may make it easier to purchase a liability insurance policy for the business.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Soco said:


> Just curious... How do you sue someone for illegally taping someone while at the same time filing court papers to keep said video OUT AS EVIDENCE in the suit???? I think this lawyer is just as mentally challenged as her client!


That was the first thing I thought of when I read the article:

Plaintiff: I want $5 mil for the suffering caused by the release of the video this dude took of me beating the crap out of him while I was drunk.
Judge: _Well, let's see the video_
Plaintiff: I want the court to exclude the video from evidence in these proceedings
Judge: _And just how do you want me and/or a jury to determine how you were damaged by the video
if we do not enter the video into evidence and view the video?_
Plaintiff: Not my problem, your honorship.
Judge: _Case dismissed._ _Would you like some pepper-spray with that court-order?_​


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Well if the daycare has a nanny cam recording (maybe primarily to protect the children) and a mom comes to pick up her kid and assaults you, is that video/audio admissible?


Day care centers generally have written contracts between the center and the family, which specifically notify the family that the center is under surveillance. The TNC could resolve this issue by including in their rider agreement and TOU a statement notifying users that they may be recorded at anytime while using the service - and adding that 'permission' to the riders and drivers apps.


----------



## SlowBoat




----------



## superise

Soco said:


> Just curious... How do you sue someone for illegally taping someone while at the same time filing court papers to keep said video OUT AS EVIDENCE in the suit???? I think this lawyer is just as mentally challenged as her client!


The lawyer is suing because the video will convict his client, he wants it suppress but i doubt he will win, what sort of expectation of privacy are you expecting on public transportation, he is visible to the public so where is his expatiation of privacy coming from. Let's see what the Judge will decide.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

superise said:


> The lawyer is suing because the video will convict his client, he wants it suppress but i doubt he will win, what sort of expectation of privacy are you expecting on public transportation, he is visible to the public so where is his expatiation of privacy coming from. Let's see what the Judge will decide.


It is interesting... here we are 50 years into the advanced tech age and our laws are still fumbling with things like this. In most (all?) states, audio reording is covered by wiretap laws... and video recording is addressed seperately. In a nutshell, if you are out in public and are 'visible', you have no expectation of privacy when it comes to VIDEO... but audio recordings, in many (most? all?) states, require consent.


----------



## D Town

SlowBoat said:


>


Backs up what I said. NO expectation of privacy in public transit. Thank you.


----------



## superise

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It is interesting... here we are 50 years into the advanced tech age and our laws are still fumbling with things like this. In most (all?) states, audio reording is covered by wiretap laws... and video recording is addressed seperately. In a nutshell, if you are out in public and are 'visible', you have no expectation of privacy when it comes to VIDEO... but audio recordings, in many (most? all?) states, require consent.


They may need to make some amendments for Public Transportation especially where the camera is there for security purposes and you would want to hear a verbal exchange if treats were issued.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

screenshot of CBS NEWS report showing which states require two-party consent: CA, WA, MT, NH, PA, FL
(wihch likely does not apply in situations where there is no expectation of privacy - like public transportation?)


----------



## Soco

superise said:


> The lawyer is suing because the video will convict his client, he wants it suppress but i doubt he will win, what sort of expectation of privacy are you expecting on public transportation, he is visible to the public so where is his expatiation of privacy coming from. Let's see what the Judge will decide.


"Golden's lawyer Courtney Pilchman told CNBC..." The lawyer for the plaintiff is female.


----------



## Brian 1208

Jufkii said:


> So much for the dash cam being recommended idea.


Dash cam Strongly recommended !! Video Recording without consent is legal in ALL 50 States. I am in Maryland , so I do not record AUDIO.


----------



## LolX

Just_in said:


> It may not be about the 5 mil. The ex taco bell guy probably has deeper pockets. Trying to drown the beaten Uber driver in court and attorney fees.


Unfortunately this is how it normally works. He can just keep appealing decisions. Hopefully the driver has some cool lawyer who does this for the publicity on the cheap or for the cut of the counter suit.

I hope for two things: 1. The driver counter sues and gets all of his lawyer fees back+ more money. 2. The lawyer who is putting this lawsuit forward for the Taco Bell asshole is disbarred.


----------



## Soco

Recording on the sly has always been legal. If it wasn't both the KGB and CIA would have absolutely nothing to do.


----------



## Just_in

LolX said:


> Unfortunately this is how it normally works. He can just keep appealing decisions. Hopefully the driver has some cool lawyer who does this for the publicity on the cheap or for the cut of the counter suit.
> 
> I hope for two things: 1. The driver counter sues and gets all of his lawyer fees back+ more money. 2. The lawyer who is putting this lawsuit forward for the Taco Bell asshole is disbarred.


It could end up costing the ex Taco Bell executive a lot more than the 25K he could settle for. That's if the beaten Uber Driver's attorney is working pro bono.


----------



## Bart McCoy

So basically the taco bell driver only has a possible case because he took an Uber X? Because surely if he took a pool ride, he would have no reasonable expectation of privacy right?


----------



## Uber 1

Mr. T said:


> A former Taco Bell executive who was arrested and fired after a viral dash-cam video showed him attacking an Uber driver is now suing that driver for $5 million - saying the driver illegally recorded the violent incident.
> 
> Ousted exec Benjamin Golden, 32, also said in court papers that driver Edward Caban, is to blame for any injuries he suffered during their Oct. 30 encounter in Costa Mesa, Calif.
> 
> Golden's lawyer Courtney Pilchman told CNBC on Friday that she also has informed prosecutors she will seek to have Caban's video of the attack barred from evidence in the criminal case against Golden on the grounds that the recording was allegedly illegally made by the driver.
> 
> Pilchman said that Caban, 23, seems to be "quite the opportunist," and that "there's very little truth to the damages that he claims," which include post-traumatic stress and claims that he lives in fear after his violent confrontation with Golden.
> 
> "I don't believe he has any of those," she said.
> 
> Both Golden's claim for $5 million in damages from Caban and others, as well as his suggestion that Caban bore responsibility for any "damages" he incurred, are contained in court documents filed in response to Caban's own civil lawsuit against Golden for the attack.
> 
> Caban's lawyer Rivers Morrell III on Friday said that Golden's claims about the recording's legal status and his blaming of Caban are "disingenuous" and "totally bogus."
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fired-taco-bell-exec-uber-attack-suing-driver-5-million-n497646


Ben Golden DID suffer damages....

I'm SURE his knuckles were bruised or scraped as a result of hitting Caban's head.

Poor Ben Golden ! ;-O

Andy


----------



## D Town

Bart McCoy said:


> So basically the taco bell driver only has a possible case because he took an Uber X? Because surely if he took a pool ride, he would have no reasonable expectation of privacy right?


He has no case period. Uber is public transpiration. No expectation on public transportation.


----------



## afrojoe824

D Town said:


> He has no case period. Uber is public transpiration. No expectation on public transportation.


Yo D, sad thing about it is that here in CA he needed to be notified of the recording and there needs to be signs on the car about audio and video recording.

Where Caban messed up was for posting it online on youtube without Golden being notified he was being recorded prior to the ride. Had Caban just submitted it 
through their attorney, there would be no lawsuit. That's where Golden is trying to sue for. Posting it online which "ruined" his career and gave him all these mental 
trauma


----------



## Uber 1

PoorBasterd said:


> I volunteer for the job! <_putting on my latex gloves_>


Don't forget the EXTRA HOT sauce for lube!

Andy


----------



## ABC123DEF

I think that the moral of the story here, boys and girls, is: 

Don't do stupid sh*t and you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Uber 1

steel108 said:


> The fact that Uber advertises "Your own *private* driver," pretty much screws the driver over. Riders can't be taped or recorded without permission in a private car. Unless Uber has something in their boilerplate language for riders allowing such things, rider will win.
> 
> I doubt the driver can even afford the lawyer for the lawsuit; no attorney will take it without a retainer. Driver is pretty screwed.


The DRIVER may be private BUT the VEHICLE is PUBLIC.

A DA / commonwealth attorney can bring suit on behalf of a person (my home was burglarized years ago and the commonwealth attorney charged the perp with B&E etc on my behalf .

In that case I was only a witness NOT the plaintiff although the case ultimately benefitted me.

Andy


----------



## Uber 1

Hunt to Eat said:


> This Ben Golden cat just continues to embarrass himself and show the world what kind of a ******bag he is. Yeah, like an Uber driver could pay a settlement any greater than $175. Gimme a friggin' break. Thankfully, this frivolous suit will go nowhere.


Actually IF it can be proven to be a frivolous law suit done with malicious intent , it is POSSIBLE for the defendant to counter sue that.

Andy


----------



## PoorBasterd

Uber 1 said:


> Don't forget the EXTRA HOT sauce for lube!


YES! TOTALLY! I'll use the Suicide-Sauce from the wings restaurant down the road.


----------



## Uber 1

20yearsdriving said:


> I'll end my posting to this tread with
> My prediction on overall issues going to court:
> Both rider & passeger rights & freedoms are "altered" by "willfully" "engaging" in a business transaction
> And some " responsibility "/ "liability " is aquired by both parties


IF it goes down like that I hope Caban has to pay $1 out of the $5 million lawsuit AND Golden has to pay EXTRA $$ for being an A$$ and wasting court time....

After all Golden as the one throwing the unprovoked punches.... (hmmm UNLESS he can somehow show that Caban had launched a reverse head butting attack on him and Golden had to deflect Caban's head using his fists for defense .....well that may be a slight stretch! ;-O

Andy


----------



## D Town

afrojoe824 said:


> Yo D, sad thing about it is that here in CA he needed to be notified of the recording and there needs to be signs on the car about audio and video recording.
> 
> Where Caban messed up was for posting it online on youtube without Golden being notified he was being recorded prior to the ride. Had Caban just submitted it
> through their attorney, there would be no lawsuit. That's where Golden is trying to sue for. Posting it online which "ruined" his career and gave him all these mental
> trauma


I refer back to Rikki Klieman's argument here.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Uber 1 said:


> IF it goes down like that I hope Caban has to pay $1 out of the $5 million lawsuit AND Golden has to pay EXTRA $$ for being an A$$ and wasting court time....
> 
> After all Golden as the one throwing the unprovoked punches.... (hmmm UNLESS he can somehow show that Caban had launched a reverse head butting attack on him and Golden had to deflect Caban's head using his fists for defense .....well that may be a slight stretch! ;-O
> 
> Andy


I like that idea 
At the end of day one word to fix it all 
???
Guess ??? Baby sitting

Or better known as regulation 
You guys are begging for it ..


----------



## afrojoe824

D Town said:


> I refer back to Rikki Klieman's argument here.


I agree. but this a-hole Golden is trying to go around some loophole. very D*** move on his behalf. Shows his lack of remorse.

So much making the rounds going on his nationally televised apologies


----------



## Bart McCoy

afrojoe824 said:


> So much making the rounds going on his nationally televised apologies


THIS
like he's trying to get the video barred from his trial to be used against him. However there's still an eyewitness to testify: the driver
Also, didn't he admit on TV that he did commit the assault? (when he apologized) Im pretty sure THAT video will be used in court against him


----------



## afrojoe824

Bart McCoy said:


> THIS
> like he's trying to get the video barred from his trial to be used against him. However there's still an eyewitness to testify: the driver
> Also, didn't he admit on TV that he did commit the assault? (when he apologized) Im pretty sure THAT video will be used in court against him


You got a point there. Either way, he's screwed.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Uber 1 said:


> Actually IF it can be proven to be a frivolous law suit done with malicious intent , it is POSSIBLE for the defendant to counter sue that.
> 
> Andy


The driver has already begun a suit againnst his attacker. The suit by the attacker is the countersuit to that action.


----------



## D Town

afrojoe824 said:


> I agree. but this a-hole Golden is trying to go around some loophole. very D*** move on his behalf. Shows his lack of remorse.
> 
> So much making the rounds going on his nationally televised apologies


You can literally sue anyone for anything. I could file a lawsuit tomorrow on Mr. Golden for the mental anguish caused by his stupidity and greed. Seriously I could if I wanted to pay a few hundred dollars to file it. Remorse? You have to have a soul to have remorse. What I don't understand is what he hopes to get out of this. Even if he won - which is impossible - he's not getting any money from a broke Uber driver. It won't affect the charges against him except to maybe make a judge come down harder on him at sentencing. Maybe he's hoping the Uber driver will drop his $25,000 lawsuit? I wouldn't. I'd up it.


----------



## Uber 1

Hunt to Eat said:


> The driver has already begun a suit againnst his attacker. The suit by the attacker is the countersuit to that action.


Yes, but then Golden attempted to "up the ante" and launched a $5 Million lawsuit against Caban ....

This is the case that I hope Caban (or his lawyers) can show the case was basically frivolous and done with malicious intent so he (Caban can counter the counter suit as it were) to allow him (Caban) to net even more $$ from Golden for all his pain and trouble.

Wow...it's getting so complicated that ironically the only people who will probably get any $$ after all is said and done is the lawyers....sigh

Andy


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Uber 1 said:


> Yes, but then Golden attempted to "up the ante" and launched a $5 Million lawsuit against Caban ....
> 
> This is the case that I hope Caban (or his lawyers) can show the case was basically frivolous and done with malicious intent so he (Caban can counter the counter suit as it were) to allow him (Caban) to net even more $$ from Golden for all his pain and trouble.
> 
> Wow...it's getting so complicated that ironically the only people who will probably get any $$ after all is said and done is the lawyers....sigh
> 
> Andy


Sadly, you are probably correct. The lawyers are going to do OK, but others will likely not be made whole. On the other hand, if Golden steps into the path of a Greyhound, I'll be able to hold back tears, I reckon.


----------



## JimS

I thought Golden apologized. I guess he takes it back. Pond scum.

Caban probably shouldn't have posted the video, though...


----------



## metal_orion

He is the perfect fit for an executive job at Uber's main HQ.


----------



## RockinEZ

20yearsdriving said:


> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/why-i-still-get-shunned-by-taxi-drivers/411583/


I have to say that even though Uber is not working out for me now. I did enjoy some of the trips I made and the responses I got.

At the end of last summer's party season I picked up a ride from downtown to 70th St. & El Cajon La Mesa.
I do the drop off and head west on El Cajon thinking the supermarket down the street would be a great place for a pit stop.

I get a ping on El Cajon and I can not find the apartments. This is murder alley, so I am starting to think maybe someone does not know Uber drivers don't have cash and this is a set up.

I call the pax and he has a strong mid African accent. He tells me the place is a half block back, but they will walk to me at the parking lot at a close bar. OK.

Up walk 4 large black gentlemen in their 20s-30s dressed in very nice suits. The first thing the pax said when they approach the car is "are we OK (my name)?". I yes I am glad I found you, sorry you had to walk. My only concern was could these guys fit in a Jetta?

The 4 guys were from the Congo. Two were working for oil companies, one was a news analyst for Fox News and the third was a geologist.

I took them to Parq. We had a great ride. I heard a bit about the Congo, but in reality the Fox news guy was really informative.

How ever rambling, I am glad anyone can get a ride from Uber.
I am happy to provide them when (if) I am driving.

I understand that in other cities life is a bit more dangerous that in San Diego, and even San Diego is not Disneyland, but is nice when a person can get a ride when they need one.
Uber did make that possible.

Joke Uber for the rate cut. I drove only one day after the rate cut and I am thinking of a real job again. $hit. It was cool while it lasted.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

RockinEZ said:


> I have to say that even though Uber is not working out for me now. I did enjoy some of the trips I made and the responses I got.
> 
> At the end of last summer's party season I picked up a ride from downtown to 70th St. & El Cajon La Mesa.
> I do the drop off and head west on El Cajon thinking the supermarket down the street would be a great place for a pit stop.
> 
> I get a ping on El Cajon and I can not find the apartments. This is murder alley, so I am starting to think maybe someone does not know Uber drivers don't have cash and this is a set up.
> 
> I call the pax and he has a strong mid African accent. He tells me the place is a half block back, but they will walk to me at the parking lot at a close bar. OK.
> 
> Up walk 4 large black gentlemen in their 20s-30s dressed in very nice suits. The first thing the pax said when they approach the car is "are we OK (my name)?". I yes I am glad I found you, sorry you had to walk. My only concern was could these guys fit in a Jetta?
> 
> The 4 guys were from the Congo. Two were working for oil companies, one was a news analyst for Fox News and the third was a geologist.
> 
> I took them to Parq. We had a great ride. I heard a bit about the Congo, but in reality the Fox news guy was really informative.
> 
> How ever rambling, I am glad anyone can get a ride from Uber.
> I am happy to provide them when (if) I am driving.
> 
> I understand that in other cities life is a bit more dangerous that in San Diego, and even San Diego is not Disneyland, but is nice when a person can get a ride when they need one.
> Uber did make that possible.
> 
> Joke Uber for the rate cut. I drove only one day and I am thinking of a real job again. $hit. It was cool while it lasted.


As always RockinEZ 
Your a Guy above


----------



## RockinEZ

20yearsdriving said:


> As always RockinEZ
> Your a Guy above


Many here have other names for me


----------



## 20yearsdriving

RockinEZ said:


> Many here have other names for me


What does that mean?


----------



## RockinEZ

I was real unpopular on my post about the reasons drivers should not show up at Uberville San Diego as a protest. 

The protesters drove their cars. Uber has our licence plates. Some may have had their apps on. 
The local news was invited by the protesters. 

Drivers join an agreement not to damage the Uber brand. No matter how you feel about Uber, you should pay attention to an agreement like that. They got you by the short hairs. 

I just recommend not jumping on the sword for no reason. 

It became an unpopular thread.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

RockinEZ said:


> I was real unpopular on my post about the reasons drivers should not show up at Uberville San Diego as a protest.
> 
> The protesters drove their cars. Uber has our licence plates. Some may have had their apps on.
> The local news was invited by the protesters.
> 
> Drivers join an agreement not to damage the Uber brand. No matter how you feel about Uber, you should pay attention to an agreement like that. They got you by the short hairs.
> 
> I just recommend not jumping on the sword for no reason.
> 
> It became an unpopular thread.


You know very well 90 % of what I post here is not very well welcomed
What matters is you are true to your self my friend
Popularity is meaningless to me


----------



## RockinEZ

20yearsdriving said:


> You know very well 90 % of what I post here is not very well welcomed
> What matters is you are true to your self my friend
> Popularity is meaningless to me


Right Arm!


----------



## JimS

Nice opinion:

*Passenger who beat his Uber driver should drop his countersuit*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Soco said:


> "Golden's lawyer Courtney Pilchman told CNBC..." The lawyer for the plaintiff is female.


O-M-G... you mean female, like a WOMAN LAWYER?!
Shocked... just shocked. What is this world coming to?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

JimS said:


> Nice opinion:
> *Passenger who beat his Uber driver should drop his countersuit*


"_Lets assume that Golden did have enough of an expectation of privacy to trigger Section 632. 
He misses the law's exception in Section 633.5, *which allows a party to record evidence reasonably 
believed to relate to the commission of a crime...*_"


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Soco said:


> Recording on the sly has always been legal. If it wasn't both the KGB and CIA would have absolutely nothing to do.


That's your standard for determning legality? 
If the KGB (which hasn't exsisted since the Soviet Union broke up in 1991) and CIA do it, it must be legal?
 yes, I know you were joking!


----------



## Uber-Doober

tb1984 said:


> You just need to let your passengers know about dash cam and audio recording.


^^^
If they can't see the cam then they're blind drunk. 
I heard that he's actually suing Uber AND the driver. 
Providing that the jury isn't a redux of the OJ jury, once they see the footage they should see that the pax was a blackout drunk and shouldn't be awarded anything. 
I don't think that being recorded without permission will hold up any more than the cam recording an accident caused by another driver. 
This is new legal territory for sure, but not really different than being on cam in a store that captures "shoppers" pilfering goods or slapping around an employee. 
Whenever I walk into a store I very seldom see any notification that cams are on and recording.


----------



## tb1984

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> If they can't see the cam then they're blind drunk.
> I heard that he's actually suing Uber AND the driver.
> Providing that the jury isn't a redux of the OJ jury, once they see the footage they should see that the pax was a blackout drunk and shouldn't be awarded anything.
> I don't think that being recorded without permission will hold up any more than the cam recording an accident caused by another driver.
> This is new legal territory for sure, but not really different than being on cam in a store that captures "shoppers" pilfering goods or slapping around an employee.
> Whenever I walk into a store I very seldom see any notification that cams are on and recording.


In most states, video recording is one-party in which you don't need any consent from people being recorded. The problem here is audio recording which is two-party in most states, so you need consent from people being recorded.


----------



## Uber-Doober

tb1984 said:


> In most states, video recording is one-party in which you don't need any consent from people being recorded. The problem here is audio recording which is two-party in most states, so you need consent from people being recorded.


^^^
Well, as far as I know, audio recording is for things such as phone convos, but if as you say it also would pertain to voice being integral with the video, then every news crew in every state in the country would be open to what amounts to billions in lawsuits every year.


----------



## Demon

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Well, as far as I know, audio recording is for things such as phone convos, but if as you say it also would pertain to voice being integral with the video, then every news crew in every state in the country would be open to what amounts to billions in lawsuits every year.


Why?


----------



## Uber-Doober

Demon said:


> Why?


^^^
Uhhh.... Because they're recording voice audio along with the video without a release from the recorded?


----------



## Demon

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Uhhh.... Because they're recording voice audio along with the video without a release from the recorded?


Not when it's in public and there's a giant camera and microphone.


----------



## Whiteorchids

JimS said:


> I thought Golden apologized. I guess he takes it back. Pond scum.
> 
> Caban probably shouldn't have posted the video, though...


I wonder if Caban didn't post it would he have been able to show in the courtroom?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opini...id=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obnetwork


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Again, folks, a dashcam is a safety device that protects you and your paxs. You do not need anyone's permission to install safety equipment in your personal automobile.


----------



## Demon

Hunt to Eat said:


> Again, folks, a dashcam is a safety device that protects you and your paxs. You do not need anyone's permission to install safety equipment in your personal automobile.


But you likely need consent to use it.


----------



## Soco

You walk down the street and believe you are not being watched. Think again.
You walk into a bank and believe you are not being video taped. Think again.
You talk to a cop in front of your own house and think his/her body camera is not recording. Think again.

You get into my vehicle and think you are NOT being taped. THINK AGAIN. And no I don't need your permission. Tell me, what waiver you signed in the previous 3 scenarios?


----------



## Demon

Soco said:


> You walk down the street and believe you are not being watched. Think again.
> You walk into a bank and believe you are not being video taped. Think again.
> You talk to a cop in front of your own house and think his/her body camera is not recording. Think again.
> 
> You get into my vehicle and think you are NOT being taped. THINK AGAIN. And no I don't need your permission. Tell me, what waiver you signed in the previous 3 scenarios?


As a matter f fact you do need my permission.

You never need to give consent to being recorded in public because you can't expect privacy in public. The bank likely has signs in plain view that you're being recorded. There's also the matter of audio recording. The bank isn't likely recording audio so they don't need consent for that. So in the situations you mentioned no waiver was needed.


----------



## Kuhataparunks

Executives get to executive positions through sordid politics and dirty business. He sued probably because he has a beach house and 3 exotic cars that needs continuous funding.
Hopefully he'll lose the lawsuit and won't be able to ever get a decent job again.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

http://www.insideedition.com/headli...tting-driver-makes-tearful-apology-im-ashamed
*Uber Passenger Claims He Can't Remember Hitting Driver, Makes Tearful Apology: 'I'm Ashamed'*
The Uber passenger says he wants to meet the driver to personally apologize.

INSIDE EDITION's Jim Moret showed video of the apology to the driver, who isn't impressed.

"I feel that he is embarrassed that it went viral," Caban said. "I don't believe that if the video hadn't been posted anywhere or if the media didn't get a hold of this, he would be apologizing."

Caban says he was so traumatized by the beating he has stopped driving for Uber.


----------



## sd1303

Michael - Cleveland said:


> "_Lets assume that Golden did have enough of an expectation of privacy to trigger Section 632.
> He misses the law's exception in Section 633.5, *which allows a party to record evidence reasonably
> believed to relate to the commission of a crime...*_"


The exception in 633.5 only applies to the crimes of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, or a violation of
Section 653m (obscene/harrassing phone calls).

Simple battery is a misdemeanor.


----------



## sd1303

Soco said:


> You get into my vehicle and think you are NOT being taped. THINK AGAIN. And no I don't need your permission.


For recording audio in California, it appears that you either need consent, or need to be able to establish that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.

I post signs (stickers) that notify passengers of the audio recording. May not be required, but I feel that it takes away any ambiguity.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

sd1303 said:


> The exception in 633.5 only applies to the crimes of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, or a violation of
> Section 653m (obscene/harrassing phone calls).
> Simple battery is a misdemeanor.


Interesting... it's a criminal case, so the prosecutor has the discrtion to change the charge to felony assault in order to provide Caban the cover needed to defend against the civil suit.


----------



## UberXTampa

ABC123DEF said:


> I think that the moral of the story here, boys and girls, is:
> 
> Don't do stupid sh*t and you have nothing to worry about.


You can't fix stupid!


----------



## Uber 1

afrojoe824 said:


> Yo D, sad thing about it is that here in CA he needed to be notified of the recording and there needs to be signs on the car about audio and video recording.
> 
> Where Caban messed up was for posting it online on youtube without Golden being notified he was being recorded prior to the ride. Had Caban just submitted it
> through their attorney, there would be no lawsuit. That's where Golden is trying to sue for. Posting it online which "ruined" his career and gave him all these mental
> trauma


Hmmmm....The TRUTH ruined Ben Golden's life....Interesting.... ;-O

Andy


----------



## sd1303

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Interesting... it's a criminal case, so the prosecutor has the discrtion to change the charge to felony assault in order to provide Caban the cover needed to defend against the civil suit.


Yea, possible, depending on his injuries.

Hopefully they charged it as a battery on a transportation provider (242.3 PC). The way it is written, it should certainly cover TNC drivers.

Still a misdemeanor, but has higher max penalties... 1 year in jail instead of 6 months, and/or a fine of $10K instead of $2K.


----------



## observer

sd1303 said:


> Yea, possible, depending on his injuries.
> 
> Hopefully they charged it as a battery on a transportation provider (242.3 PC). The way it is written, it should certainly cover TNC drivers.
> 
> Still a misdemeanor, but has higher max penalties... 1 year in jail instead of 6 months, and/or a fine of $10K instead of $2K.


I'm pretty sure they did charge him with that.


----------



## observer

sd1303 said:


> Yea, possible, depending on his injuries.
> 
> Hopefully they charged it as a battery on a transportation provider (242.3 PC). The way it is written, it should certainly cover TNC drivers.
> 
> Still a misdemeanor, but has higher max penalties... 1 year in jail instead of 6 months, and/or a fine of $10K instead of $2K.


They did,

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/03/former-taco-bell-exec-faces-new-charges-in-uber-fracas.html


----------

