# Guilty until \*you\* prove your innocence (literally). Don't get busted in Florida! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 14, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231 "2012-07-14T18:20:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/101 "2012-07-16T19:09:06Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Presumption of innocence has been a cornerstone of criminal law for a long time. Too bad the media isnt aware of this ---
**Author:** ![MrDurden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ed655f/32.png) [@MrDurden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDurden)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/102 "2012-07-16T20:29:55Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > AFAIK Kansas is also a strict liability state. When my father died one of the boxes of items I recovered from his house contained a pot pipe and other paraphernalia. I asked a lawyer on this board privately if it was legal to own, and he looked it up and told me I needed legal help, because even my accidental possession could get me in trouble. I sought help from a lawyer in my town, who told me the single best thing I could do was throw it in the trash. Apparently, turning it in to the police was a Bad Idea, as he knew of cases where people walked up to a police station, said “I found this in the park”, and were promptly arrested and charged with misdemeanor possession. And in one case, went to jail. Because they could not prove that they were not in “possession” of the item as they were turning it into the police. :rolleyes: > > Naturally I destroyed everything, and the statute of limitations has run out anyhow. 😕 That is absurd. Why wouldn’t you just toss it in a pond, bury it, dumpster it, etc? You actually hired a lawyer for this? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/103 "2012-07-16T22:03:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So, if you claim the weed was put there by somebody else, and the state doesn’t bother to put on any proof to the contrary, you will probably go free. That proof doesn’t have to be proof, in and of itself, that you did put the weed there. It just has to rebut your claim sufficiently for the jury to disregard it\*, so they can go back to drawing inferences. I must be misunderstanding you because under this scheme, the police could never convict someone of possession of drugs. A cop pulls me over and there is a bag of weed in the passenger seat. At trial the prosecution will describe how the cop found the drugs. I take the stand and say that it wasn’t mine, I stopped a mile back down the road to use the restroom and came back and starting driving. My attention was diverted because I was having a bad day, so I never looked at the passenger seat. Someone must have placed it in my unlocked car while I was in the restroom, your honor. Now, if I understand you correctly, the state now has to “rebut my claim sufficiently for the jury to disregard it.” How would they do that exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/104 "2012-07-17T01:27:00Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I must be misunderstanding you because under this scheme, the police could never convict someone of possession of drugs. A cop pulls me over and there is a bag of weed in the passenger seat. At trial the prosecution will describe how the cop found the drugs. > > I take the stand and say that it wasn’t mine, I stopped a mile back down the road to use the restroom and came back and starting driving. My attention was diverted because I was having a bad day, so I never looked at the passenger seat. Someone must have placed it in my unlocked car while I was in the restroom, your honor. > > Now, if I understand you correctly, the state now has to “rebut my claim sufficiently for the jury to disregard it.” How would they do that exactly? I can’t answer for RNATB but I think **Bricker** answered this in [post #94](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15277752&postcount=94). As I showed earlier, despite what I would guess is a common protestation of, “That ain’t mine!”, our court system has had no trouble tossing people into jail by the truck load for drug possession. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/105 "2012-07-17T02:31:02Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Now, if I understand you correctly, the state now has to “rebut my claim sufficiently for the jury to disregard it.” How would they do that exactly? You’ll have to ask Bricker about how stuff works in practice, but I imagine it depends on the case. Rather hard to argue that a baggie isn’t yours if there are your fingerprints all over it, for example. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/106 "2012-07-17T03:22:51Z")
So is this the new standard for legal discussions? Posters make statements and when questioned, the questioner is told to wait for **Bricker** to respond? Let’s just turn legal threads into \*\*Bricker \*\*manifestos. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/107 "2012-07-17T03:57:01Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > So is this the new standard for legal discussions? Posters make statements and when questioned, the questioner is told to wait for **Bricker** to respond? Let’s just turn legal threads into \*\*Bricker \*\*manifestos. I may disagree with **Bricker** but he knows the minutiae of how the court works because he has expertise in that area and I linked just above to an answer of his that I think addresses your question. If that did not address what you are asking you can say so and ask for further clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/108 "2012-07-17T13:47:49Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > So is this the new standard for legal discussions? Posters make statements and when questioned, the questioner is told to wait for **Bricker** to respond? Let’s just turn legal threads into \*\*Bricker \*\*manifestos. Yes, let’s. But don’t worry – threads will still operate the way they do today: people whose opinions are supported by the factual content of my posts will praise me; people whose opinions are hurt by the factual content of my posts will disagree, without citation to fact, and loudly insist that the law is a matter of opinion, and besides there’s The Spirit to consider, to which they alone are privy, and the five or six posters on this board able to consistently separate their desires from the truth of factual information will continue to do so quietly. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/109 "2012-07-17T13:58:34Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I must be misunderstanding you because under this scheme, the police could never convict someone of possession of drugs. A cop pulls me over and there is a bag of weed in the passenger seat. At trial the prosecution will describe how the cop found the drugs. > > I take the stand and say that it wasn’t mine, I stopped a mile back down the road to use the restroom and came back and starting driving. My attention was diverted because I was having a bad day, so I never looked at the passenger seat. Someone must have placed it in my unlocked car while I was in the restroom, your honor. > > Now, if I understand you correctly, the state now has to “rebut my claim sufficiently for the jury to disregard it.” How would they do that exactly? The jury is entitled to believe, or disbelieve, anything you say. Note that merely because they disbelieve your story does not produce a record that supports the opposite conclusion. By this I mean if you testified that you saw the rapist attacking the girl, and was not Steve, they can disregard your testimony, but they cannot convict Steve just because they don’t believe you. They have to have some evidence that says it WAS Steve. In this hypothetical, the jury is entitled to infer that a person sitting next to a transparent baggie, openly visible on the seat, would see it. And assuming the bag itself is in evidence, they are entitled to to look at it and decide that its character and status as contraband was immediately obvious to anyone. They don’t HAVE to decide that, but those are permissible inferences. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/110 "2012-07-17T14:13:05Z")
Florida: Don’t get caught with dope, 'cause you’ll presumed guilty unless you prove yourself innocent\*. But want to kill your 4yr old baby, hide the body in the woods and go clubbing for a month? Want to play rent-a-cop and shoot an unarmed 17yr old kid? Florida’s your kind of state! \*yes I know I’m misrepresenting the law. It’s called poetic license; bite me. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/111 "2012-07-17T14:33:56Z")
In fairness, we have an overabundance of kids _and_ weed, so the state’s public policy of reducing the numbers of both kind of makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/112 "2012-07-17T14:59:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In fairness, we have an overabundance of kids _and_ weed, so the state’s public policy of reducing the numbers of both kind of makes sense. Gotta be another Modest Proposal in there somewhere. Remember when they had the problem with all the land mines in Thailand etc? And the UK was struggling of what to do with the potentially gadzillions of BSE-infected cattle? And the thought was, just ship all the cows to Thailand and let 'em wander around, randomly finding the land mines as they graze. Problem solved. Something along those lines. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/113 "2012-07-17T17:10:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, let’s. > > But don’t worry – threads will still operate the way they do today: people whose opinions are supported by the factual content of my posts will praise me; people whose opinions are hurt by the factual content of my posts will disagree, without citation to fact, and loudly insist that the law is a matter of opinion, and besides there’s The Spirit to consider, to which they alone are privy, and the five or six posters on this board able to consistently separate their desires from the truth of factual information will continue to do so quietly. Says the person who has provided no citations in this thread and likened this to statutory rape in post #8 to insinuate this is now a strict liability crime when it isn’t. Keep up the good work counselor! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/114 "2012-07-17T17:18:04Z")
The distinction between strict liability and general intent aside, he was exactly right (both this law and statutory rape laws create general intent crimes). The key is that either way _mens rea_ is not required. The only iffy part is that SCOTUS has yet to rule on the constitutionality of such statutory rape laws. He did not say they had, though; he just impled that if you support those it’s hard to see why you’d have a problem with this. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/115 "2012-07-17T17:51:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The distinction between strict liability and general intent aside, he was exactly right (both this law and statutory rape laws create general intent crimes). The key is that either way _mens rea_ is not required. > > The only iffy part is that SCOTUS has yet to rule on the constitutionality of such statutory rape laws. He did not say they had, though; he just impled that if you support those it’s hard to see why you’d have a problem with this. If you are accused of statutory rape and they prove you had sex with an underage person then there is no “but” or other circumstances which changes the outcome. In Florida you may be proved to have possessed an illegal drug but in theory you can still be found innocent if you can prove it wasn’t yours and had no knowledge of it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/116 "2012-07-17T18:47:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Says the person who has provided no citations in this thread and likened this to statutory rape in post #8 to insinuate this is now a strict liability crime when it isn’t. > > Keep up the good work counselor! :rolleyes: I have participated in hundreds of threads, and written thousands of posts that were carefully cited, and the response from you and the rest of your brain-dead lummock companions has been to peer at them briefly and then continue to bray loudly your own opinion. You, and your compatriots, have heads impervious to cited facts. Why would I possibly expect this thread to be any different? I mentioned statutory rape to illustrate two things. One was that the new drug law is a general-intent crime, with no specific scienter requirement. Your OP blathers like Chicken Little about the claim that this somehow changes the burden or proof; confronted with a law that is already more draconian than the drug law in this regard, and has existed for years, someone with the mental acuity of a mealworm would have realized that if this change truly represented a removal of the presumption of innocence, then the statutory rape laws had already done that and worse. You would have then cogitated a bit and realized that perhaps you were being a trifle hasty – that, indeed, the accused is still presumed innocent, and the change only amounts to the elements of the crime being changed. But, of course, you didn’t do that. I see no reason to waste my valuable time looking up caselaw and posting it for the benefit of slack-jawed primates barely able to master potty training. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/117 "2012-07-17T18:59:35Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > If you are accused of statutory rape and they prove you had sex with an underage person then there is no “but” or other circumstances which changes the outcome. > > In Florida you may be proved to have possessed an illegal drug but in theory you can still be found innocent if you can prove it wasn’t yours and had no knowledge of it. I would have thought this was obvious, but the issue with statutory rape is that the perpetrator _may not have known_ the victim was underage. Do you really not get the parallel? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/118 "2012-07-17T19:12:54Z")
**Bricker’s** wrong. I feel it in my gut. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/119 "2012-07-17T20:35:35Z")
> [@bup](#): > > **Bricker’s** wrong. I feel it in my gut. I have to go now, and kill all the hostages. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231/120 "2012-07-17T20:51:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have participated in hundreds of threads, and written thousands of posts that were carefully cited, and the response from you and the rest of your brain-dead lummock companions has been to peer at them briefly and then continue to bray loudly your own opinion. You, and your compatriots, have heads impervious to cited facts. Why would I possibly expect this thread to be any different? Then you should stop posting here if you think mere assertion is enough because people do not appreciate your cites and ignore them. > [@](#): > > I mentioned statutory rape to illustrate two things. One was that the new drug law is a general-intent crime, with no specific scienter requirement. Your OP blathers like Chicken Little about the claim that this somehow changes the burden or proof; confronted with a law that is already more draconian than the drug law in this regard, and has existed for years, someone with the mental acuity of a mealworm would have realized that if this change truly represented a removal of the presumption of innocence, then the statutory rape laws had already done that and worse. You would have then cogitated a bit and realized that perhaps you were being a trifle hasty – that, indeed, the accused is still presumed innocent, and the change only amounts to the elements of the crime being changed. They are _not the same_. It is my understanding that in a statutory rape case there are no mitigating circumstances when it comes to whether the defendant is guilty or not. You could produce ten witnesses and security video and testimony from the underage person admitting they got into a bar on a fake ID, that they seduced the older person and told that person they were 22 years old and willingly engaged in sex and all of it could be absolutely believed and not matter one whit. If you had sex with an underage person that is all the state cares about. You are guilty if you did it. You cannot produce any defense beyond trying to prove that the sexual intercourse did not occur. In the case of Florida and their new take on possession the circumstances can still matter. Possession is one element of the crime but not the _only_ one. As has already been noted (and cited) knowledge that you were possessing an illegal substance is part of the crime and still bears on the question of guilt in Florida. Except Florida has shifted the burden of proof from the state to the accused. Yes, the state still has to prove possession so you are _technically_ correct you have a presumption of innocence when you step into the courtroom. Except think about it. What does the state have to do to prove you were in possession of an illegal substance? Prosecutor: Officer, when you searched the defendant what did you find? Officer: I found a comb, a wallet, house keys, $22 in cash and a bag of what looked like marijuana. Prosecutor: Was the substance in the bag marijuana? Officer: Yes, we tested it and it was marijuana. That’s it. State just proved you were in possession of a controlled substance. Took them all of what? Thirty seconds and the state’s case is done under Florida law. It is an absurdly simple hurdle for the prosecution to get over. What defense do you propose as a rebuttal to this? “No you didn’t!”? I produced videos earlier of police planting drugs on people. You cannot assume the police are always telling the truth and honest keepers of the public trust. It is now incumbent upon you to deny your guilt and prove your innocence. Look at the order of those words…guilty till you prove your innocence. Previously and in other states the state still needs to make their case beyond mere possession. Not so in Florida. The accused now needs to prove the elements in the case to show they are innocent. Hence guilty until you prove your innocence. As a practical matter that is the state of affairs in Florida now for a drug possession case. In typical Bricker fashion though you sidle in, toss some snark, make no effort to understand what is being discussed and make some assertion on how the law is what it is and all us cretins should not argue with you. This is a _message board_ and not law school. We complain about a given law being unjust or in error for some reason or other. Even among lawyers there is a lot of debate about how a law should be applied or if a law goes too far. If there weren’t there’d be no Supreme Court cases. Saying the law is what it is is beside the point. Coming here and demeaning people because they have the temerity to not accede to the proclamations of the Great Lord Bricker Whose Every Word Drips With Absolute Truth is bullshit and you well know it (or should). If you think the Florida take on possession is peachy say so rather than ranting that it is the LAW and all us peons should just suck it up and accept it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guilty-until-you-prove-your-innocence-literally-dont-get-busted-in-florida/628231.md?page=7)