criminal-law
Burden of proof at customs
<p>I am not a law professional at all but I all of a sudden realized something to which I cannot find a reasonable answer. In customs (or in similar law-enforcement acts), why is the burden of proof on the subject but not on the state?</p>

<p>CASE 1) If Acme Inc. imports some agricultural products, then she needs to demonstrate that everything complies with the biosafety regulations rather than the officers proving a violation. Then Acme needs to perform any necessary test by herself.</p>

<p>CASE 2) If it is claimed Mrs. X is insane and needs a guardian, then the burden of proof is with the plaintiff. Mrs. X need not prove that she is a reasonable person to a public authority every single minute to remain officially sane.</p>

<p>My interpretation for the case 2 is that somebody is assumed to be reasonable by nature unless something happens. But why is some"thing" is not OK by default?</p>

<p>You are thinking of the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution, which rests with the prosecution because defendants are presumed innocent.</p>

<p>The cases you describe are not criminal prosecutions, so different rules prevail. </p>

<p>Using the United States and your case 1 that Acme has to demonstrate their imported products comply with U.S. law rather than the border patrol having to prove they don't:</p>

<p>No one is charged with a crime here so there is nothing the government has to prove.</p>

<p>However, Section 8 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution grants to The Congress the power:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Therefore, in regulating commerce with foreign nations, Congress can pass a law that says that importers of products must demonstrate that their products comply with U.S. law.</p>
