Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What criminal charges did George Floyd face and were any convictions recorded before 2020?
Executive Summary
George Floyd had a documented criminal history prior to 2020 that included multiple arrests for drug- and property-related offenses in Texas and a 2009 guilty plea to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon for which he was sentenced and later paroled; there were no records of comparable serious convictions after he moved to Minnesota [1] [2]. Reporting and fact-checking since 2020 confirm these baseline facts while also showing that some circulating claims about Floyd’s past were exaggerated or false, and that focusing on his prior convictions became a contested rhetorical tool in public debate over police accountability [2] [1] [3].
1. What records actually show about arrests and convictions — the concrete timeline that matters
Publicly available court records and contemporary investigative reports establish that George Floyd was arrested repeatedly between the late 1990s and 2009, mostly in Harris County, Texas, on charges including drug possession, theft, and ultimately aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, to which he pleaded guilty in 2009 and received a multi-year sentence; he was paroled in 2013. Journalistic accounts compiled in 2020 and subsequent fact-checking have reiterated those events as the principal legal milestones in his pre-2020 history, noting months-long jail terms for earlier drug and theft offenses and the 2009 conviction as the most serious recorded criminal conviction prior to his relocation to Minnesota [1] [3].
2. What changed (or didn’t) after he moved to Minnesota — the gap critics often ignore
Multiple fact-check analyses and biographies emphasize that no comparable serious convictions are recorded for Floyd after he moved to Minnesota, which is an important contextual fact often omitted in political messaging aimed at character-smearing. Fact-checkers who reviewed social-media claims in 2025 reiterated that while Floyd’s Texas criminal history is documented, attempts to present him as a continuing violent offender in Minneapolis are not supported by the record; those efforts sometimes relied on misattributed photos or exaggerations flagged by reporters [2]. Separating the older Texas convictions from his later life in Minneapolis is central to accurate public understanding and to assessing claims about what Minneapolis officers may or may not have known before May 2020 [2].
3. How journalists and fact-checkers treated disputed or false claims — distinguishing verified records from viral fabrications
Investigations and subsequent fact-checking work exposed several viral claims that attempted to broaden or sensationalize Floyd’s criminal history; one widely shared meme that purported to show him assaulting a pregnant woman was debunked as a misattributed image of another person, and publications pointed to exaggeration and decontextualization in some right-leaning outlets’ narratives. Fact-checks in 2025 reiterated that factual basis exists for his prior convictions but not for many ancillary claims circulated after his death, underscoring the difference between verifiable court records and partisan or viral storytelling [2].
4. Why these details became legally and politically salient after May 2020
Floyd’s prior arrests and convictions were repeatedly referenced during coverage of the police murder trials and public debate because defense teams and commentators sought to contextualize or mitigate the officers’ conduct, while civil-rights advocates cautioned that invoking an individual’s past risked dehumanizing the victim and distracting from police accountability. Court filings and reporting from 2020 through later reviews note that past convictions can be relevant in specific legal strategies but do not justify lethal force, and experts flagged the use of background detail as a rhetorical tactic on both sides of the debate [1] [4].
5. What remains consistent across sources and what to watch for in future reporting
Across contemporary investigative pieces, court records, and later fact-checks, the consistent findings are the multiple pre-2010 arrests for drug and property offenses in Texas and the 2009 aggravated robbery conviction followed by parole in 2013, with no substantial criminal convictions in Minnesota before 2020; that consensus is reflected in reporting from 2020 and in fact-checking updates through 2025. Readers should watch for two common pitfalls in future coverage: conflating older, verified convictions with unverified allegations, and allowing selective emphasis on criminal history to obscure statutory findings about the officers’ conduct and the official medical and legal determinations regarding Floyd’s death [1] [2] [3].