Situated in a concrete canyon off U.S. 26, the MAX platform at Cedar Hills' Sunset Transit Center can be clamorous during any evening commute.

So, what does it take to get banned from the transit system for "making excessive noise"?

Jennie Bricker says she simply bruised the ego of a TriMet fare inspector who was arguing with another rider waiting for the 5:10 p.m. train.

Bricker said she heard TriMet insector Larry Boltjes tell the man to "stop talking" and that he had no free-speech rights on public transit platforms.

"I called to him that I disagreed," Bricker says in a U.S. District Court complaint that could have sweeping consequences for how Oregon's largest transit agency polices the conduct of riders.

Apparently, Boltjes had no idea that Bricker, who was waiting on the eastbound platform with her bike, is an attorney. Or that she works for the Portland legal juggernaut Stoel Rives, a firm that counts TriMet among its clients.

Bricker maintains that she didn't yell, but did accuse Boltjes of abusing his authority. He, in turn, wrote her a 30-day exclusion for making excessive noise.

Now, more than a year after the Oct. 5, 2011, incident, the case has landed in federal court in Portland and driven yet another free-speech thorn into the side of TriMet's daily operations.

Bricker claims TriMet violated her First Amendment rights. But she's not asking for monetary damages. Instead, the attorney wants Oregon's largest transit agency to commit to better training of its fare officers and clarifying the code used to cite riders for disruptive behavior.

So far, TriMet has refused.

"Part of the problem is that the code, as written, doesn't give a bright line of what it means to annoy or harass or make excessive noise," said Chip Paternoster, a Portland attorney who is representing Bricker on behalf of the ACLU of Oregon. "It doesn't give what I'd call a classic fire-in-a-crowded-theater moment."

TriMet code forbids: "excessive or unnecessary noise, including boisterous and unreasonably loud conduct, within any District Vehicle or District Station with the intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to the public, District personnel, or a peace officer, or with a reckless disregard to the risk thereof."

The Oregon Supreme Court is already reviewing a 2008 Multnomah County Circuit Court free-speech ruling that said TriMet must accept all advertisements because its vehicles qualify as public spaces.

However, Bricker's complaint has far greater implications for average commuters, Paternoster said. Under the current wording of TriMet's code, riders can be kicked off public transit due to an arbitrary decision by an inspector having a bad day, he said.

First Amendment scholars say a number of factors -- from growing transit use to the rapid evolution of technology to the nation's deep political divide – have made free-speech controversies increasingly common on the nation's public transit systems.

In 2011, for example, riders accused Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART, of censorship after it blocked wireless signals at stations in an attempt to prevent protests opposing a fatal shooting death by BART police. This fall, meanwhile, several transit agencies, including TriMet, have said free-speech court rulings have required them to accept inflammatory anti-jihadist and pro-Palestinian vehicle ads.

But Ken Paulson, president and CEO of the First Amendment Center, which has offices in Washington, D.C., and at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.,said noise statutes enforced by public agencies need to be clear, objective and consisteent.

TriMet's excessive-noise code, Paulson said, "would be really had to enforce. How clear is it to the public on what is considered 'unreasonably loud'? You have to have objective standards."

TriMet declined to comment on the case, saying it doesn't discuss pending litigation.

However, TriMet spokeswoman Roberta Altstadt said, "There is no point at which a person can be excluded for expressing an opinion. The TriMet code is only targeted at disruptive conduct that affects transit or creates a risk of harm to others, not speech."

Between Oct. 1, 2011, and Sept. 30, TriMet issued just two citations and 23 exclusions related to excessive noise.

Bricker declined to discuss the free-speech complaint filed last week in U.S. District Court. Boltjes could not be reached for comment.

However, court records show that Bricker challenged her exclusion before a Portland hearings officer.

During that hearing, records show, Boltjes testified that he was checking fares on the platform when an uncooperative man became "loud and abusive."

Bricker said that when she heard the inspector tell the man that he had no First Amendment rights, she was about 30 feet away.

She testified that she raised her voice "enough to be heard" without yelling. Boltjes admitted to telling Bricker that it was "not her place to interject."

He claimed Bricker was loud enough to draw the attention of about eight other people on the platform that Wednesday evening.

When he walked down the platform to confront Bricker, the uncooperative man ran away. Boltjes started to chase after him, but returned to Bricker and blamed her for the fare evader getting away, she told the hearings officer.

But a blond woman sitting on a bench, she said, applauded her for standing up for free speech. Nearby, a man appeared to be filming her exchange with the inspector, prompting Boltjes to tell him he couldn't do that, Bricker testified.

In fact, TriMet code does not prohibit riders from filming or taking photos at stations or on vehicles as long as it doesn't interfere with operations or create a safety hazard.

Visibly enraged, the 60-year-old inspector prevented Bricker from getting on the next two trains before writing her a month-long exclusion from the entire system, she testified. Bricker had no prior record of problems on TriMet.

"It was the content of my speech that was objectionable," Bricker testified, "not the volume."

Hearings officer Kimberly Graves wrote that she found the testimony of both sides credible. Yet she upheld the exclusion, saying Bricker was being disruptive enough to prevent Boltjes from doing his job.

Bricker appealed the suspension to Multnomah County Circuit Court, where the case bounced around before a judge recently determined its free-speech questions should be answered in federal court.

The gray areas of TriMet's noise code is only part of why the public should be alarmed by confrontation, Paternoster said. TriMet, he said, needs to do a better job of training workers interacting with the public to have a thicker skin.

"Jennie Bricker was just a bystander -- a passerby -- voicing her opinion," Paternoster said. "Ironically, she's punished for defending someone else's free-speech rights."

-- Joseph Rose

