Is placing the burden of proof on the accused illegal?

Question

The specific situation I'm thinking of is ticket inspectors, but it could apply to other situations.

1. The ticket inspectors assume you are fare evading without evidence (no presumption of innocence)
2. They ask to see your ticket (violent communication, implying you're lying)
3. If you refuse, you can be arrested and escorted off the train even though your ticket is valid (actual physical violence), and possibly issued a fine, not for travelling without a valid ticket, but for failing to produce a valid ticket when asked

As far as I know, the police must have reasonable suspicion before interacting with you, and ticket inspectors are also called "transit police". I'm not sure if they're actual police or not.

My issue is not about fare evasion. It is about treating the innocent as if they were guilty and placing the burden of proof on the accused instead of the accuser. For what it's worth, I always travel with a valid ticket and I don't like fare evasion. I also find it offensive being falsely accused on an almost daily basis, even if that's not how they see it.

Transit laws notwithstanding, is this behaviour in any way illegal?

Answer 1

From a US perspective, in a word, "no".

Firstly, "presumption of innocence" is in a trial, not in police interactions. Being arrested does not violate the presumption of innocence. Police do not need any reason to interact with you or ask you questions. Police can arrest you if they have probable cause to suspect you have committed a crime, but this is not always necessary. More on this later(in the fourth section).

Secondly, I wouldn't describe requesting to see your ticket, or any document as a "violent communication", in general. It may be rude or insulting, but not violent. (Also "violent communication" is not a legal term. The closest legal terms, verbal assault and threatening communication, are also not this.) More over, there is no indication of am implication of lying in this request.

Thirdly, there are many situations in which possessing a document or credential is not sufficient; one must legally display or present them upon request. For example, multiple occupational licenses such as liquor licenses and barber/cosmetology licenses require that the licenses be prominently displayed; whereas, in California at least, a vehicle driver on a public road must not only possess their driver's license and proof of insurance, they must produce them upon the request of any law enforcement officer (Source: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18).

Fourthly, there are situations in which you can be legally searched and questioned without reasonable suspicion. Examples of this include boarder searches and sobriety checkpoints. Sources: (US Supreme Court rulings): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz

A note on sources: bdb484 and I have opposing court case sources. My sources have binding precedent over all courts in the US, save the US Supreme Court, whereas theirs don't have any binding precedent, but are more directly on-topic.

Answer 2

I don't know what the framework is in Australia, but for whatever it's worth, this has come up in the United States, as well. We had a case just last year where a judge found that it violated the Fourth Amendment to stop people and demand proof of payment based on nothing more than their presence on the bus:

Once aboard the bus, there is a presumption that each passenger is legally present unless the officer rebuts the presumption with reasonable articulable suspicion that a passenger has failed to pay.

Again, the Fourth Amendment obviously doesn't apply in Australia, but since your question suggests that you may operate under the same "reasonable suspicion" standard that we have over here, this could be a useful analysis.

You can read coverage of the case and the decision here.

Answer 3

Austrailia is a Commonwealth nation and thus follows Common Law. Common Law holds precedence of "Shopkeeper's Prerogative" which establishes in a place where you purchase an item or service or entry fee, the operator of the establishment has a right to reasonable search or detain you for arrest by law enforcement (citizens arrest) if he or she has a reasonable suspicion of theft (in this case, a transit ride without fair) has occurred.

Certain stores find ways to give them this reasonable suspicion. For example, taking an item with a security tag out of the store will trip the alarms, which will give the store employees a right to check the receipt and the goods you have purchased to make sure everything got rung up. They can detain you if you refuse to comply. In the U.S. we also have members only bulk whole sale stores (Sam's Club, BJ's Costco) which normally have language in their member agreement that requires you to produce a reciept on demand of the store as a term of membership. You have to sign this agreement in order to be a member and eligible for store purchases.

Either of these can be used with the purchase of a ticket for service. The purchase creates an agreement between the customer and the service to a search on service operator's request OR the ticket will allow you to pass entry or egress barriers that if tripped without a ticket, or circumvented, give the service provider suspicion enough to search you for evidence of purchase.