Local News | Local Politics | Puget Sound | Traffic Lab

Transit fare inspections are upheld by WA Supreme Court

March 16, 2023 at 8:19 am Updated March 16, 2023 at 5:26 pm

By Mike Lindblom and David Kroman
Seattle Times staff reporters

The Washington state Supreme Court upheld fare enforcement checks on public transit as legal Thursday, but ruled that deputies wrongfully detained a Snohomish County man when he didn’t show proof of payment on a bus. ... The decision does not tell transit agencies how to carry out fare enforcement, and it appears unlikely to change the daily experience of most riders. “The government has a general need for fare enforcement on barrier-free transit,” justices agreed.

Three justices concluded that the role of armed police inside a transit vehicle, telling someone to produce fare and ID, was coercive during the 2018 incident. Two others found a lack of proof that deputies were authorized to conduct fare inspections for Community Transit. That adds up to a five-judge majority who criticized how the specific fare check was done, yet all nine still recognized a right of transit agencies to conduct fare inspections.

Community Transit’s Swift buses in Snohomish County, as well as King County Metro RapidRide buses, Sound Transit light rail, and Sounder commuter trains, rely on spot checks of passengers, instead of turnstiles or fare gates, to compel payment. These “barrier free” methods reduce costs to build rail stations, and in the case of buses they allow quick loading through all doors.

The arguments before the court involved the experience of bus passenger Zachery Meredith. He was aboard Community Transit’s Swift bus line, between Everett Station and the Aurora Village Transit Center in Shoreline, where most riders tap their ORCA fare cards at roadside kiosks before boarding. While riding, he was approached by a Snohomish County sheriff’s deputy, who asked for proof he’d paid in advance. The encounter ended in an arrest. ... Meredith sued, and after lower courts found fare enforcement to be constitutional, the case reached the state Supreme Court in 2021.

Proof of Payment

The question at the center of the case is not whether it's legal to charge for public transit but whether it's legal to ask for proof of payment.

{snip}

An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the name of Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud.


Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @MikeLindblom. Staff reporter Mike Lindblom covers transportation for The Seattle Times.
David Kroman: 206-464-3196 or dkroman@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @KromanDavid. Seattle Times staff reporter David Kroman covers transportation.

THE FUTURE OF WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW

Does Fare Enforcement Infringe on Rights to Privacy?

The Washington state Supreme Court will consider whether enforcing fares on public transit systems violates passengers’ rights. If upheld, the court’s ruling could have statewide ramifications.

Jan. 27, 2022 • David Kroman, The Seattle Times

(TNS) — On March 18, 2018, three Snohomish County, Wash., sheriff's deputies boarded a bus in Everett and asked Zachery Meredith to prove he'd paid for his ride. That act of fare enforcement violated his civil rights under the state constitution, Meredith's lawyer argues.

After being rejected by lower courts, the argument has now found its way to the Washington state Supreme Court, where the justices will weigh whether fare enforcement represents an unconstitutional incursion into passengers' right to privacy.

If Meredith's case is successful, transit agencies could be stripped of the authority, granted by the state, to pace the aisles of trains and buses, querying riders for evidence they'd tapped their ORCA cards or bought a ticket. The implications for Sound Transit, King County Metro's RapidRide routes, Snohomish County's Community Transit and other agencies that employ fare enforcement officers are significant. ... "There are statewide ramifications for transit in Washington state that will flow from this case," said Nathan Sugg, a deputy prosecuting attorney with the Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office who's representing the state in the case.

But for Tobin Klusty, attorney for Meredith, a rejection of the case — which is being supported by the ACLU of Washington, King County Department of Public Defense and the Washington Defender Association — would signal an endorsement of unlawful search and seizures by law enforcement officers. The government "could conduct investigations without any reasonable suspicion or any suspicion of unlawful activities simply because they want to make sure the law's being enforced," he said.

{snip}

(c)2022 The Seattle Times. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.