Contrary to common propaganda, crime is — indeed — still illegal.
So, while a decision last week from the Washington State Supreme Court might seem (in common parlance) like small potatoes, it fits into a frequent narrative about American society.
The justices were hearing a case involving Zachary Meredith, a Snohomish County man who boarded a bus in 2018. When a sheriff’s deputy asked for proof of payment during a routine check, Meredith did not provide proof and did not have a transit card, and he was arrested after providing a false name.
The case ended up in court, with Meredith’s attorney arguing that because he had been stopped by an armed deputy, he was technically “seized” by police, violating his right against illegal search and seizure. The issue eventually resulted in the state Supreme Court decision. There, the complexities of law and individual rights became evident.
“The government has a general need for fare enforcement on barrier-free transit,” the justices unanimously agreed.
Indeed. As Portland’s light-rail system frequently demonstrates, a lack of turnstiles or fare inspections is an open invitation to scofflaws.
But the Supreme Court justices also added some caveats. Three justices concluded that the role of armed police inside a transit vehicle, telling someone to produce fare and ID, was coercive. Two others found a lack of proof that deputies were authorized to conduct fare inspections for Community Transit, the bus system in Snohomish County.
So, a five-member majority criticized how the specific fare check was conducted, yet all nine recognized the right of transit agencies to conduct fare inspections.
“We do not strike down any statute permitting designated persons to request proof of fare payment on barrier-free transit systems,” Justice Mary Yu wrote in the lead opinion. “We reject only the particular method of fare enforcement used here, given the lack of legal justification in the record. Our holding is necessary both to preserve the constitutional privacy rights of transit passengers and to mitigate the known, racially disproportionate impact of such fare enforcement practices.”
In one regard, this is relative to discussions about extending the MAX light-rail system into Clark County. MAX is a “barrier-free” system that relies on the honor system rather than requiring payment to board. Last week, following a public records request, KATU-TV reported: “TriMet MAX trains have likely accumulated hundreds of hours of delays over the last year due to ‘passenger issues’ caused by riders smoking or suspected of smoking fentanyl and other illicit drugs.”
It is not difficult to draw a connection between a lack of fare enforcement and “passenger issues.” And it is reasonable for Clark County residents to demand improved security before the system is welcomed here.
In another regard, the issue of fare enforcement speaks to presumed lawlessness throughout the United States. Used as a trope to stoke fear and score political points, the frequent claim is that crime is no longer illegal.
In reality, the United States is tough on crime. According to World Prison Brief, we have the largest incarceration rate among developed nations.
Whether or not that is appropriate is a discussion for another time, but it is important to allow enforcement amid the things that form our social structure — roads, public spaces, public transit, etc. The state Supreme Court was correct to recognize that fact.
