Brown v. State
679 So. 2d 367, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9798, 1996 WL 526215
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 18, 1996·No. No. 95-3311·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
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).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brown v. State, 679 So. 2d 367, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9798, 1996 WL 526215 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).
679 So. 2d 367 (Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commonwealth v. Gomes
903 N.E.2d 234 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2009)