Edwards v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6061
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Edwards was released from imprisonment for lewd molestation and began a ten-year probation term.
- Final probation modification required curfew 10pm–6am or as directed and wearing a GPS monitor with monthly fee.
- Affidavit alleged violations based on ‘bracelet gone’ alerts from May 16 to June 8, 2008, reported by Pro Tech Monitoring.
- No Pro Tech representative testified; company records were admitted via a correction probation specialist and were hearsay, not independently authenticated as business records.
- Probation officer testified about alerts and Edwards’s complaints of device malfunction; she observed a base station issue but did not witness an alert.
- Circuit court found violations based on the alerts, and Edwards challenged the revocation on grounds of hearsay and lack of willfulness; on appeal, the revocation was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Pro Tech reports sufficient to prove violations? | Edwards contends hearsay, lacking proper foundation, cannot alone sustain revocation. | Edwards argues the reports are admissible as business records and sufficient when corroborated. | No; hearsay alone failed to prove the violations. |
| Was the violation willful given device malfunctions? | Edwards disregarded monitoring rules evidenced by the officer’s testimony of apathy toward alerts. | Edwards and daughter testified to repeated device problems, undermining willfulness. | Not willful; evidence showed equipment issues and unintentional noncompliance. |
| Did the evidence tie the alerts to breach of specific probation terms (curfew/monitoring)? | Alerts violated curfew/monitoring conditions as defined by the probation terms. | Alerts largely happened at night or due to device malfunction; no clear rule violation established by the record. | Evidence failed to prove violations of the specific monitoring rules; revocation reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gammon v. State, 778 So.2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (hearsay exceptions may permit use, but cannot be sole basis for revocation)
- Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (hearsay within exceptions may support revocation)
- Cuciak v. State, 410 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1982) (probation revocation requires more than hearsay evidence)
- Ruise v. State, 43 So.3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (GPS data with proper foundation can establish violation)
- Soliz v. State, 18 So.3d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (records custodian testimony supports reliability of bracelet data)
- Correa v. State, 43 So.3d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (equipment problems may negate willful noncompliance finding)
- Coma v. State, 43 So.3d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (intentional disregard generally constitutes willful violation; defects may negate it)