The Boiling Frog: How “Plain View” Testimony is Turning America into a Police State

By: John Guidry

As the old saying goes, police work is only easy in a police state. In America, we have freedom. Freedom makes police work difficult. However, I often sense we are inching closer to a police state, not through dramatic coups, but through subtle court decisions—like the proverbial frog that never jumps out of the boiling water because the temperature increases are so gradual.

Let’s talk about one of those temperature increases found in Jennings v. State, 124 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Did the officer claim they saw drugs that were actually hidden? “Plain View” is a common police fabrication. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: Jennings v. State (The “Open Bag” Miracle)

The Facts: Jennings was driving a car with two passengers. He was stopped for a traffic violation and acted “very, very nervous.”

• The Flight: While talking to the cop, both passengers ran for it (and were caught).
• The Discovery: Lying on the front passenger floorboard was a gym bag containing two kilos of cocaine and $30,000 in cash.

The Testimony: The officers testified that the cocaine was in Plain View, the bag sitting wide open for everyone to see—including the driver, Jennings.

My Internal Conflict: After defending cases for over 20 years, it amazes me that traffickers wouldn’t zip up a bag.

• Theory A: Criminals are stupid.
• Theory B: Police know the law “too well.” If the officer testified the bag was zipped, the case would likely be tossed because the State couldn’t prove Jennings knew what was inside (Constructive Possession). But if the officer testifies, “It was wide open!”, suddenly the case is slam-dunk. Convenient, isn’t it?

The Ruling: Driver + Plain View = Guilt

Jennings appealed, arguing he didn’t have exclusive control of the bag since there were other people in the car. The Law of Constructive Possession: In a jointly occupied car, the State must prove:

1. Knowledge of the contraband.
2. Dominion and Control over it.

Why Jennings Lost: The Court ruled that Plain View solves the “Knowledge” problem. Since the officer claimed the bag was open, Jennings must have seen it. Furthermore, the Court cited Brown v. State, reasoning that as the Driver, Jennings had inherent control over the vehicle.

• The Equation: Control of Car + Drugs in Plain View = Dominion and Control established.

The “Plain View” testimony saved the State’s case. Without it, they couldn’t prove Jennings knew the cocaine was there.

John’s 2026 Update: Body Cams & The Death of the “Open Bag” Lie

Note: In 2013, the officer’s word was gold. In 2026, we have the instant replay.

1. The Body Cam Defense In 2013, we had to rely on the officer’s “convenient” memory that the bag was open.

• The 2026 Reality: Every traffic stop is recorded.
• The Strategy: We pull the footage. If the video shows the officer unzipping the bag after he pulls it out of the car, the “Plain View” claim is exposed as perjury. We win these hearings by contrasting the report (“It was open”) with the video (It was zipped).

2. The Hemp Odor Problem The Jennings court mentioned that the “odor” of drugs can establish knowledge.

• The 2026 Defense: With legal Hemp everywhere, the smell of cannabis is no longer proof of criminal knowledge.
• The Argument: Even if Jennings smelled “weed,” he could reasonably assume his passengers possessed legal Hemp. The smell no longer proves he knew about the illegal cocaine.

3. “Nervousness” is Not Evidence Jennings was convicted partly because he was “very nervous.”

• The 2026 Science: We now use expert testimony to explain that everyone is nervous during a traffic stop. In the age of viral videos of police misconduct, a citizen’s nervousness is a survival instinct, not a confession of guilt.

Don’t Let Them Write the Narrative

“Plain View” is the oldest trick in the book to bypass your rights. If the police claim they saw something they couldn’t possibly have seen, we fight it with the evidence they can’t hide.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s watch the video.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.