body: 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?
  
  
  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.
  
  
  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.
  
  
  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?
  
  
  
title: Burden of proof at customs