State v. Smith
State v. Smith
710 So. 2d 980; 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 295; 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1036; 1998 WL 286287
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
State v. Smith
Opinion of the Court
We have for review the following question certified to be of great public importance:
SHOULD THE REQUIREMENT THAT A DEFENDANT PAY FOR DRUG TESTING BE TREATED AS A GENERAL CONDITION OF PROBATION FOR WHICH NOTICE IS PROVIDED BY SECTION 948.09(6), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), OR SHOULD IT BE TREATED AS A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT REQUIRES ORAL ANNOUNCEMENT?
Smith v. State, 702 So.2d 1305, 1306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in State v. Williams, No. 91,655, — So.2d - (Fla. June 4, 1998), by holding that the requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which the trial court must pronounce orally at sentencing. Accordingly, we approve the decision below.
It is so ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.