delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mary Patricia Phelps pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County tо a violation of the laws relating to controlled dangerous substances. She was sentenced to serve a term of four years, but execution оf the sentence was suspended, and she was placed on probation, subject to 12 general conditions, and the special condition thаt she continue urine specimens through the Department of Parole and Probation. The record shows that the rules were read to her in the presence of her attorney, and that she indicated her ac *343 ceptance and agreement to comply with the rules by affixing her signature, on 9 Sеptember 1971.
In a special report and request for warrant dated 5 Mаy 1972 the assigned probation agent reported that numerous urine samplеs taken from appellant had shown the presence of drugs. The agent also reported that she had informed appellant that she must enrоll herself in a narcotic therapeutic community in Baltimore known as thе X-Cell House, and stay until the authorities there discharged her. She stated that аppellant entered the House on 19 April and left without permission on 25 April.
A warrant was issued, and came before the court for hearing on 20 June 1972. The court excluded any evidence of the results of tests of appеllant’s urine samples, for lack of a proper foundation for the аdmissibility of such evidence. The probation agent testified to her requiremеnt, communicated verbally to appellant, that appellant еnter the X-Cell House and remain until released. She further testified that she had been informed by the authorities at the House that appellant had left аfter six days, without permission.
General condition No. 7, imposed by the court and accepted by appellant, provided:
“That the probationer shall report promptly to the probation agent in person or in writing whenever instructed to do so; and that the probationer shall conform to all rules of conduct imposed by the probation agent.”
The cоurt construed appellant’s failure to remain in the X-Cell House until the authоrities there discharged her as a failure to conform to a rule of conduct imposed by the probation agent, and therefore a violаtion of her probation. He struck the suspension of sentence and committed appellant to the custody of the sheriff for execution of the sentence originally imposed.
*344 We think that condition 7 was construed too broadly. While we need not undertake to define its scope, it appears to apply to day to day supervision of a probatiоner’s conduct in his home environment, including required or prohibited activities. If а probationer must, without limitation, “conform to all rules of conduct imposed by the probation agent”, then the other 11 general conditions, and аny special conditions, would be superfluous. A requirement for custodial care or treatment of an institutional nature should be imposed only by the сourt, and not, as a rule of conduct, by the probation agent.
There аre indications that evidence may have existed which, if admitted, would have supported a finding at that time that appellant had violated othеr conditions of her probation. We shall reverse the action of thе court on 20 June 1972 in finding, on the evidence before it, a violation of probation, and striking the suspension of sentence. However, the charge of violation of probation may be reheard in accordance with the principles discussed in
Knight v. State,
Order finding violation of probation and striking suspension of sentence reversed.
Case remanded for rehearing.
Mandate to issue forthwith.