Bad Form, FL State Attorney's Office

I just got the most bizarre letter. I apparently bounced a check at the grocery store back in college...IN 1996...and the Florida State Attorney's office informs me that I can pay them the amount of the check (about $100) and their $30 fee, or I can go to jail for up to 5 years. That is basically the gist of their letter. I had no idea about this bounced check previous to receiving this letter, and if they didn't have a copy of the check I would not have even believed it to be true. But still...this is what the State Attorney's Office of Florida is wasting their time on? Trying to collect an 11 year old bad debt for $100?

I was inspired to do a little research by what WASN'T in this letter. Nowhere does the helpful Assistant State Attorney mention to me that the statute of limitations in FL for passing worthless checks is 2 years. Nowhere does he concede that this means the SoL in my "case" expired more than 9 years ago. No, I was simply told that I can either pay the money or go directly to jail.

Now, because it's not much money, I'm going to do the right thing and pay it. But I am presently under no legal obligation to do so. As you might imagine, the letter that is enclosing my payment is going to be colorful, to say the least.

I just wonder about other people who might get letters like this and not think to ask about or research the applicable statute of limitations. Is this just a money-making scheme for the State Attorney, digging through their old files and finding unpaid bounced checks that they can harass people for? Is this an appropriate use of the time of a state attorney's office? There was nothing preventing Publix from coming after me for this check themselves anytime over the last 11 years, and since they are the ones I owe I expect they have a more vested interest in getting their $100 than the State Attorney does in getting their $30 in fees.

This shady behavior by a prosecutor reminds me of when a friend received a "subpoena" to testify in a criminal trial, just through regular mail but on a printed form that indicated failure to call the DA back and acknowledge the subpoena would be grounds for being held in criminal contempt. The GA statutes on service of subpoenas are very clear that to perfect service, the subpoena must either be served in person or via certified mail. The DA was relying on laypersons' ignorance of the requirements to perfect service and a healthy dose of fearmongering to get them to voluntarily appear for trial. Even though I insisted to her that she had not been properly served under the clear requirements of the statute, this friend was afraid to not appear at the trial because of the large print bolded threats of criminal prosecution contained on the "subpoena."

It's little things like this that make me worry just how often the government abuses their power. On Saturday we had a discussion about the death penalty with one of those "hang 'em from the nearest tree" types who insisted that executions should happen often and quickly where it was "obvious" that the perpetrator had committed the murder. We discussed how hard it is to call almost any crime obvious absent videotaped evidence that they committed the murder. We also talked about how many cases that have resulted in overturned convictions through the Innocence Project and otherwise happened because the prosecution forgot or otherwise failed to turn over critical exculpatory evidence that had been in their files all along. We also talked about how they have all the resources and advantages in the world, while defendants often have little to no resources and cannot utilize exculpatory evidence that they don't know even exists. I won't say we turned the hang 'em high guy's mind around on the issue, but we certainly made him think a little bit.

Obviously this is not on the same level, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from all this. Should a state attorney be writing misleading letters attempting to collect fines on criminal charges that are long past the statute of limitations? Should they be playing on ignorance or fear to collect old debt? I don't deny that I owe the money, and that's why I'm going to pay it. But I dislike being threatened in such a misleading fashion by a government attorney who should know better and aspire to honesty and openness.

(Before anyone mentions it, the Florida Statute of Limitations on point does allow that the time may be extended while a defendant is out of state, but it cannot be extended for more than 3 years in this fashion. So, either way, the statute has still expired many moons before they sent me this letter.)