Say I am in an airport with illegal drugs on me but get nervous about going through security so I stuff my drugs in the pocket of your coat you have draped on the chair next to me and hope to retrieve it on the other side of security.
As it happens the drugs are found in your coat when you go through security.
You are certainly in possession of drugs and you will be arrested.
The difference now is that in Florida YOU have to prove (not reasonable doubt but prove) you knew nothing about it.
You’ve always had to prove that there were some extenuating circumstances that mean you’re not guilty of possessing drugs when they find you possessing drugs.
So, I can send you to jail with no more effort than planting drugs on you?
When caught you are in possession which will obviously get you arrested.
The difference now though is whether you have to make the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that you were framed to you proving that you are innocent.
The burden has been moved from the prosecutor to you and your burden as the accused is now substantially more difficult.
So now they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were or were not framed? Sorry, that’s a defense claim, not a prosecution issue. And honestly, that’s a completely batshit crazy idea.
One of the main reasons that when I buy a used car the first thing I do is make an appointment with the dog handlers on base to run a drug sniffer through it.
Since it seems like the answer to your question is no:
Start with the bedrock presumption of innocence (this is stuff you already know). “Presumed innocent” means that if you get charged with a crime, you walk into the courtroom not guilty. You only become guilty on the basis of the evidence presented by the people charging you with the crime. You’re presumed innocent of that particular offense, not presumed to be a good person. It’s not a philosophical position, in other words, which is important because of the fact that what has to happen in order for you to no longer be presumed innocent is defined entirely by the law you’re being charged with violating, i.e. if the definition of murder is that you killed somebody intentionally, it’s presumed that you didn’t kill anyone until there’s sufficient evidence to prove that you killed someone, and it’s presumed that you didn’t do it intentionally until there’s sufficient evidence to prove that you did it intentionally.
So in this case, you get charged with possessing drugs. What the Florida law says is that it’s illegal to possess drugs. It doesn’t say that it’s illegal to possess drugs knowingly or intentionally. It also says that you can defend yourself by demonstrating that you didn’t know. As a result, all that has to be proven is that you possessed something, and it was drugs, and then it’s up to you to provide evidence that you didn’t know. Otherwise you’re guilty. Basically, the controversy is over the fact that the burden of proof is switched from the state to the defendant on the issue of knowledge. That’s why it’s loosely being talked about as a presumption of innocence issue: you are presumed to know that you have the drugs, if you had them, rather than being presumed not to know.
It’s not technically correct that the presumption of innocence has been eliminated.
It’s also not technically correct that drug possession was made a strict liability crime like statutory sexual assault – that you’re necessarily guilty even if you didn’t know you had drugs. What is technically correct is that Florida is the only state that says that you, the defendant, are the one who bears the responsibility to offer up evidence on the issue of knowing/intentional possession. I’ll leave the question of whether that all adds up to a big deal or not a big deal to everyone else.
You go up there and take the stand and tell your story about how you didn’t know, and the prosecutor gets up there and says “listen to that bullshit,” and offers up whatever circumstantial evidence they have to suggest that you would have known (well, really it goes prosecutor’s evidence - your story - “listen to that bullshit”), and then the jury decides whether they think it’s bullshit. Everything that ever gets proven is only proven in the sense that the jury believes it.
No…it is about the state proving beyond a reasonable doubt which is not the same as firm, undeniable proof.
As noted this is the way it has worked in all states for a very long time.
It is not as if the states are having trouble filling our prisons with drug offenders. The US has 5% of the world’s population and about 25% of the world’s prison population. (CITE)
So, Florida has just made it easier to bust you for possession but it is not like they felt they needed to do this because it was so easy for people possessing drugs to get away with it.
The accused already faced a system that was stacked against them. Now it is even more difficult.
The used car drug thing happened to a friend of mine. Fortunately it was only one joint in an astray in the back and he was out of state, so after sweating him for a weekend they let him go. Though they did keep his gun. He figured it was a 50 percent chance it was from the previous owner and a 50 percent chance it was planted by obnoxious redneck cop.
Yes, I know that. My question would be IN PRACTICE in most trials in Florida vs one those other states is there going to be any PRACTICAL difference as to how the trial goes down?
Aren’t the judge or jury in either state basically going to decide who they believe to make their decision? Thats an honest question as I have no real world experience with trials.
Seems to me the only kind a trial where it would matter whether it was Florida or some other state would be a trial like this:
Prosecution: We found drugs on you and here is the proof we did.
And then, the prosection offers zero other proof. No arguments about how you had to know or you knew your friends were dealers or you had magical income or any other number of things.
And all the defense does is plead the fifth.
Are many drug trials going to go down like that? Again, an honest question
I would say it has been eliminated in Florida for drug possession.
Anyone who is arrested has some compelling evidence to suggest they committed the crime (at least in theory).
If the police find drugs on you then you are in possession of drugs. Pretty straightforward.
When you walk into court the presumption of innocence is not really resting on whether you were in possession (that one the prosecutor can get established easily I would think…either you had the drugs on you or you didn’t [ignoring for a moment the police possibly planting drugs on you]). As a result the accused is already facing an uphill battle.
If it was strict liability then having drugs, period, is a crime and it does not matter how it got there. That would be a truly goofy way to do things because it denies any mitigating circumstances. The state would be saying they do not give a shit about how you came into possession of the drugs but rather you are guilty merely for having them. This is not like statutory rape where the state literally does not care about the circumstance but rather whether sex occurred and the person was underage.
So, in drug possession cases the circumstances can matter. Now however they do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but make the accused prove (a much higher hurdle) that they are actually innocent.
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt was a direct outgrowth of presumed innocence. When you get rid of reasonable doubt you have denied presumption of innocence in the court.
So, you are saying that having drugs in your possession is de facto proof that you possess drugs? And all that’s left is to determine whether you had them in your possession intentionally? (which is not the same as knowing they were in your possession (because of “you see, officer, I found this package of what looked like illegal drugs and I was on my way to the station house to turn them in”)).
They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you possessed the drugs. Neither presumption of innocence nor reasonable doubt have been changed - what has been changed is what constitutes innocence or guilt for this particular crime.
You’ve got it, mostly, but expand that to include every situation where there’s no reliable evidence about knowledge/intent either way – which does happen. In other words, all you have is a person with drugs in his or her bag, and neither side has much to present about whether they knew or didn’t know. The defendant might still take the stand, and the DA might make arguments, but if there’s no evidence from either side about knowledge, then the difference becomes critical: in Florida, you’re guilty as to knowledge, and in other states you aren’t.
You’re mistaken. Floridians are presumed innocent of drug possession. When the state offers proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant possessed drugs, then and only then can the defendant be found guilty. What has been changed is what the presumption applies to; i.e. what are the elements of the crime.
Possession still has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and drugs still have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That still works the way it works in other states. If you will, the difference in Florida is that possession, once established, is considered to be de facto proof of intentional possession, whereas in other states intent is another thing the state needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Seems to me proving you possessed the drugs is falling off a log easy.
Prosecutor: Officer, when you searched the defendant what did you find?
Officer: I found a bag with an ounce of marijuana in it.
What is the defense to that? “No you didn’t”? “It was really oregano”?
It is the other circumstances which become important.
Yes they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you possessed drugs but that is downright simple in most cases. It is the other stuff which they have shifted the burden of proof.
To say you have a reasonable doubt protection on one element of the case but none of the others which bear on the case to me denies the premise of reasonable doubt.
Imagine I tossed a baggie at you with some stuff in it and out of pure instinct you catch it then I yell at a nearby cop and, pointing at you, yell “He has drugs!”
Boom…possession. Not YOU have to prove you are innocent rather than the state proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you are actually a criminal.
What are the other elements of the case? If it’s strict liability, there are none. If not, it will depend whether it’s reasonable to infer from possession that the other elements are satisfied - from what a couple of other posters have said, it’s this that the court has actually ruled.
If “possession” is defined in law as holding, even for a split second, the drugs, and is a strict liability offence, you would be guilty. That would, of course, be a stupid law - but not one I’d put past certain American lawmakers with their obsessive War On Drugs.
