2 typo
source | link

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 offierofficer 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.

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 offier 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.

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.

1
source | link

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 offier 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.