australia burden-of-proof
Is placing the burden of proof on the accused illegal?
<p>The specific situation I'm thinking of is ticket inspectors, but it could apply to other situations.</p>

<ol>
<li>The ticket inspectors assume you are fare evading without evidence (no presumption of innocence)</li>
<li>They ask to see your ticket (violent communication, implying you're lying)</li>
<li>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</li>
</ol>

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

<p>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.</p>

<p>Transit laws notwithstanding, is this behaviour in any way illegal?</p>

<p>From a US perspective, in a word, "no".</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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: <a href="https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18</a>).</p>

<p>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):
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte</a>;</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz</a></p>

<p>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.</p>
