That's pretty scary, I wouldn't stand for that; human, animal or alien to be honest. Whatever works for you...

I thought that you can refuse a search in any developed country. For certain you should never give the police permission to search anything that belongs to you.

If the police could search anyone without just cause then there Would be chaos! And not having the correct ticket is hardly just cause.

You were unlucky.
Usually, this many police are too busy hassling single teenagers in the park for smoking a joint.

OK, I'm still not clear on one point: what was the fine for?

As I understand it, she didn't have her valid ticket with her plus the dog apparently needed a ticket, too. Not sure how the fine breaks down, though (maybe CHF 80 for the missing ticket and CHF 20 for the dog).

It would be good to have an update from the OP whether she tackled them directly at their offices and what the outcome was.

Well they do not call it "Staatsgewalt" for nothing. The police are allowed to search you - even without your permission - if they suspect to find evidence ("Tatspuren") or objects or assets subject to seizure ("zu beschlagnahmende Gegenstände und Vermögenswerte") (art. 249 StPO)

In addition (at least for the Canton Zurich - mileage for other Cantons may vary), the police are permitted to establish your identity. You are required to provide the necessary information and show any identity documents, and the police are permitted to open containers for this purpose ("Behältnisse") (§21 Polizeigesetz). A handbag will be considered as a "container".

The ZVV has guidelines on conducting ticket inspections (which includes that they are permitted to restrain you until your identity is established) and when they are required to call the police (in particular to establish your identity). It states that in general they will issue a payment slip, however, they can also take cash upon providing a receipt:
http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/content/...rolle_2011.pdf

__________________
Liability for any statements hereinabove excluded! - Need a Swiss lawyer PM me.

I'm not sure that riding without a valid ticket is particularly grounds to search someone, though, and I think this is really the point of the thread.

Otherwise it makes sense and I think is pretty common throughout Europe - if you are suspected of carrying something illegal you can be immediately stopped and searched.

Obviously we don't know the full story here and perhaps the OP got gobby with the police or was somehow acting suspiciously, we'll never know because we weren't there, but rightly or wrongly, it seems they searched her bag for no other reason than she wasn't travelling with a ticket for her or the dog and she didn't have any relevant ID on her at that point.

Again people are falling for the trap of plastic police vs the real thing.

Give the plastic police all the hassle you can then be as nice as pie to the real guys.

"Hey I'd love to go down the station so you can verify my identity, it could take some time though. Do I get the sirens on in the car, pretty please!"

Do not ever be threatened by any of these people.

The OP said she had a valid pass, and a dog in a carrier doesn't require a ticket. What am I missing?!?

I used the word "in addition" in the sense that this is alternate reason or grounds for searching someone's bag. It suffices that the police are required to identify someone. In the present case, the ticket inspectors suspected some infraction (whether rightly or wrongly is another issue... I guess it depends on what you consider a "small" dog) and the relevant regulations (PBG, PVG, etc.) allow for the identification of passengers. So yes, it seems that they searched her bag for no other reason that she could not prove her identity on the spot by providing some form of ID...

One could consider this excessive... however, considering that the alternative would be to take you to the station, formally question you, take fingerprints, etc., I consider it pragmatic... and so did the Federal Supreme Court (http://jumpcgi.bger.ch/cgi-bin/JumpC...09_1C_179/2008) see section 5.

This only applies where the "plastic police" do not have any discretion. Where the "plastic police" has discretion to only fine you for a minor violation or whether to throw the book at you, giving them hassle is not necessarily the best approach.... be polite, explain why you acted in this or that way, and depending on the circumstances throw in a mea culpa.

If you go confrontational and decide to hassle them, you've just about blown any chance to escalate the matter to their supervisors...

__________________
Liability for any statements hereinabove excluded! - Need a Swiss lawyer PM me.

The OP said she had a valid pass, and a dog in a carrier doesn't require a ticket, nor does a small child. What am I missing?!?

In Neuchatel at least all the buses show a 100CHF fine instead of 80CHF now. They added new stickers to them

You know why, right?

A judge (correctly IMHO) concluded it was unfair for the fine for having a "partial" ticket (e.g. 2nd class ticket in first class, or not the entire journey) be the same as the fine for having no ticket at all.

But rather than reduce the fine for a partial ticket, they simply raised the fine for having no ticket at all! So it really just caused everyone to be screwed even more.

Sorry, you're right. It seems that it was the dog that was the issue...

All a bit odd, that's all...

Yep, some part of the story is missing.

Pray, allow me...

Seems pretty clear here - the dog was not in a basket, but got on under its own steam, so didn't qualify as hand luggage and therefore required a ticket. Inspector was maybe a bit heavy-handed, I'll grant you...

Ahh but it's a game, just draw them out for as much time as you can waste, see it as a public favour to those who would be hassled next in line.

I didn't say shout/scream at them, I said hassle, which in my mind means to waste as much of their time as possible. After all that's what they are doing to you. The guy in Basel who tried a similar thing with me I used this technique, not only did it make my day, but the inspector was livid.

See them as telemarketers with a badge, that should put them in the right category..

In that case, couldn't you argue that any under-5 which got on the bus under its own steam should pay, whereas any child which was carried on should not?
AFAIK, you pay for the space to travel on the bus, not for simply getting on and off.
Whether the OP or the inspector was in the right, there is still no excuse for being aggressive enough towards a small child to make them cry. the OP should file an official complaint against the inspector, just for that. Assuming this is what happened, of course.

I'm very much afraid that it's people like those ticket inspectors that make the trains run on time.

Probably why we have to put up with such a crap public transport infrastructire in blighty - you don't tend to get such bad-tempered, beaurocratic, ill-humoured, officious, callous, jack-booted, uniformed neo-facists (perhaps that's a bit strong, but you get my drift).

As the old saying goes, 'rules are like horses - you have to break them before they become useful'.

Would you care to explain your logic on that one?