The Turnstile Stop
Metro Transit's posted fare policy has five rules. (1) A rider under 18 receives a warning only; no fee is assessed, and a guardian notice is mailed. (2) A rider 18 or older with no fare violation in the past 12 months may choose diversion: a $25 fee plus an online course completed within 30 days. (3) Diversion is unavailable if the rider has an open warrant, has failed diversion before, or refuses to sign the acknowledgment. (4) If diversion is refused or unavailable, the officer issues a citation with a court date. (5) A rider who gives false identification is cited regardless of age.
At 08:15, Officer Pruitt stops a rider at the 3rd Street turnstile. Her ID shows a date of birth making her 16 years and 11 months old. Records show one fare citation eight months ago, resolved by paying the $25 fee. She has no warrants. She is calm but says, "I'm not signing anything."
1. What is the correct disposition? Work through each rule that could plausibly apply.
Read the worked answer
Disposition: warning only, no fee, guardian notice mailed.
Rule-by-rule:
- Rule 1 controls. She is under 18, so the under-18 track applies and it is unconditional - no fee, no course, guardian notice.
- Rule 2 does not apply. Diversion is written for riders 18 or older; a minor is not routed into it, so the $25 fee and 30-day course never enter the analysis.
- Rule 3 does not apply. She has no warrant and has not failed diversion. Her refusal to sign is irrelevant because there is no acknowledgment to sign on the under-18 track.
- Rule 4 does not apply. A citation is required only when diversion is refused or unavailable - but diversion was never the applicable track.
- Rule 5 does not apply. The ID is hers and matches her stated identity; disagreeing with the age it proves is not "false identification."
Common error to avoid: treating the eight-month-old citation as disqualifying. The 12-month lookback is a condition of adult diversion eligibility only.
2. Suppose the records check had returned an open warrant for an unrelated matter. How would the disposition change?
Read the worked answer
The fare disposition is unchanged; the contact disposition is not.
- The fare violation is still handled under Rule 1: warning only, no fee, guardian notice. Nothing in the warrant rule converts a minor's fare violation into a fee case.
- The warrant is an independent basis for custody, and it is not governed by the fare rules at all. It must be confirmed through dispatch, and the juvenile handling and guardian-notification procedures for a custodial arrest attach.
- Do not offer diversion. Rule 3 makes diversion unavailable with an open warrant, but that rule is doing no work here - a minor was never on the diversion track.
Point of reasoning: two rule systems are running at once. Resolve the fare question under the fare rules, then resolve custody under the warrant, and do not let one distort the other.
3. Pruitt's partner says: "She had a citation eight months ago, so she is not eligible for diversion - cite her." Evaluate that reasoning.
Read the worked answer
The conclusion is wrong, and the premise is also misapplied.
- Eligibility is the wrong question. Diversion under Rule 2 is an adult option. Asking whether a 16-year-old is "eligible for diversion" assumes a track she is not on.
- The lookback is misplaced. The 12-month window in Rule 2 screens adults choosing diversion. It has no stated role in Rule 1, which is unconditional for riders under 18.
- The outcome would violate Rule 1. Issuing a citation to a minor with a clean warrant status and valid ID contradicts the warning-only rule, and it would also skip the mandatory guardian notice.
Correct response to the partner: age, not the prior citation, determines the track. The prior citation would matter only if she were 18 or older.