The aphorism is expressed as 'possession is nine tenths of the law', meaning if you are caught with the illegal thing in your possession, then you will most likely be found guilty in a criminal court of law.
Chat with our AI personalities
The phrase, "possession is nine tenths of the law", is though to be an ancient concept from English Common Law but it may be older. It implies that one who is in possession of property is most likely the rightful owner and can be assumed to be the rightful owner outside of a court's jurisdiction. The one who is in possession of property has a stronger claim than someone who merely says it belongs to them. However, it is not a law and ownership can always be challenged in court. It may also imply that any rightful owner of property has the right to control that property without regard for anyone else's interference.
US Answer (Colorado): The oft stated adage contains a little more than a modicum of truth. Imagine Joe is visiting the house of an acquaintance, Bob. During the visit, Joe took a liking to a very rare and expensive book, and pocketed the book without Bob's knowledge. Within a few days, Bob discovered the book was missing, and similarly discovered it was in Joe's possession. Joe has since refused to return the valuable item, and Bob decided to take matters into his own hands and retrieve his stolen property. Bob marched over to Joe's house, barged in and retrieved the book. Joe called the cops, who arrested Bob, for burglary and trespass and they returned the book to Joe. The cops explain that the ownership of the book appeared at that point to be a civil dispute, whereas the trespass and unlawful taking of property appeared to be an objective criminal act. Eventually, the mitigating circumstances notwithstanding, Bob could be found guilty of trespass and even burglary even thought item "stolen" was lawfully his. The question of possession and ownership are not equal. There are many gyrations the above scenario could adopt for illustrative purposes to argue specific points, for example, what if Bob had actually stolen the book ten years earlier from a museum, and while the cops are at Joe's house, they recognize the book as being the book stolen from the museum - who would get arrested for possession of the stolen material, Bob? Not likely, in fact it would be Joe - Joe's lack of knowledge about the stolen nature of the book is not important at that point. What is important is that Joe claimed possession of the book.
Basically it is an old rule that states someone in possession of something is assumed to be in lawful possession until it can be shown otherwise.