“Trust Me, It’s Blue”: Why Probation Officers Can Now Play Chemist in Court

By: John Guidry

“Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” — John Wigmore

How do we really know something is true?

In the courtroom, we test it. If a document accuses you of wrongdoing, the State must usually provide a live witness to verify it.

• The Problem: In Violation of Probation (VOP) hearings, the rules are relaxed. Hearsay is admissible, as long as it is “corroborated” by non-hearsay.
• The Danger: The recent decision in Marquis Bell v. State (5th DCA 2015) has dumbed down the process, turning judges into rubber stamps for law enforcement.

Did your PO violate you based on a dip-stick test they don’t understand?

You can still fight the science. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Bell Decision: Legalizing the “Magic Trick”

The Old Rule:

A Probation Officer (PO) could not testify that “The test strip turned blue, which means positive for weed,” because the PO is not a chemist. They were just reading a box. That is Hearsay.

The Bell Rule:

The 5th District Court of Appeal ruled that a PO CAN testify about the field test result.

• The Loophole: They claim the PO is testifying to their “observation” (seeing the blue line), not the science.
• The Bootstrapping: They then allow the Lab Report (which is Hearsay) to be admitted because it is “corroborated” by the PO’s field test testimony.

Why This is Dangerous:

• No Chemist Required: The PO doesn’t need to know how the test works, only that they have used it “thousands of times.”
• Correlation $\neq$ Causation: Just because a PO has dipped a stick 1,000 times doesn’t mean they understand false positives.
• The Result: You can be sent to prison based on the testimony of a person who has zero scientific training and is simply reading a pamphlet.

The “Lemon” Logic

The Court’s logic confuses Correlation with Causation.

• Example: Highway deaths in the U.S. have declined in exact proportion to the tons of lemons imported from Mexico.
• The Logic: Does importing lemons cause safer roads? No. It’s a coincidence.

In Bell, the Court assumes that because the Lab Report usually matches the Field Test, the Field Test is scientifically reliable. They are letting the PO testify about a chemical reaction they don’t understand, denying you the right to cross-examine the actual science.

John’s 2026 Update: The Hemp Defense & State v. Queior

Note: The fight over “Hearsay” was lost, but the fight over “Science” is just beginning.

1. The Supreme Court Ruled Against Us (State v. Queior)

Shortly after I wrote this, the Florida Supreme Court resolved the conflict in State v. Queior (2016).

• The Ruling: They sided with Bell. A PO’s testimony about a field test is admissible and is not hearsay. It counts as “independent proof” to support the lab report.
• The Reality: We can no longer object to the PO testifying about the blue line. We have to attack the validity of the line itself.

2. The “Hemp” Defense (The New Weapon)

In 2026, the Field Test is our target.

• The Problem: Most cheap immersion field tests (dip sticks) cannot distinguish between Illegal Delta-9 THC and Legal Delta-8/CBD.
• The Strategy: We cross-examine the PO: “Does this $2 test distinguish between legal Hemp and illegal Marijuana?” If they say “No” (or “I don’t know”), the test result is scientifically meaningless. A “Positive” for THC is not a violation if the THC came from a legal source.

3. Body Cam Audits

• The Mistake: POs get sloppy. They often read the test too early or contaminate the sample.
• The Defense: In 2026, we demand the Body Cam footage of the drug test administration. If the PO didn’t wear gloves or read the result at the wrong time (e.g., 2 minutes instead of 5), we argue the “Observation” was flawed, regardless of Queior.

Don’t Let Bad Science Revoke Your Freedom

Just because the PO is allowed to testify doesn’t mean they are right. If you are facing a VOP for a dirty urine test, especially for THC, we can challenge the reliability of the kit.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s send that sample to an independent lab.

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.