Opinion

Brown v. State

  • 679 So. 2d 367
  • 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9798
  • 1996 WL 526215
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Filed
Sep 18, 1996
Status
Published
On the bench
Glickstein, Gross, Warner
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 45.8%

conditions of probation requiring the defendant to undergo testing invalid since not related to the crime committed or the rehabilitation of the defendant

How later courts described this case

  • conditions of probation requiring the defendant to undergo testing invalid since not related to the crime committed or the rehabilitation of the defendant

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm both conditions of probation except for that portion of condition eleven (11) that requires random alcohol testing, which we reverse and remand with direction to strike same.

This requirement fails to be reasonably related to the rehabilitation of appellant, bears no relationship to the crime for which appellant was convicted, and relates to conduct that is otherwise legal. See Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993); Fernandez v. State, 677 So.2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.