Reflects Florida Statutes current through the 2026 session and reported decisions through 2025. § 948.06 was amended in 2026 (ch. 2026-18, ch. 2026-20), but only to rename “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material” in the list of qualifying offenses — the mandatory-reinstatement provision discussed here is unchanged. Every statute cite links to the official text on Online Sunshine, which opens in a new window.
Florida law does contain a provision that strips a judge of discretion and requires reinstatement of probation after a violation. It is § 948.06(2)(f)1., Fla. Stat. But it is considerably narrower than “a first technical violation,” and most of the litigation under it turns on that gap.
← First Probation Violation in Florida
The four conditions — § 948.06(2)(f)1.
| Condition | |
|---|---|
| a. | The term of supervision is probation — not community control |
| b. | The probationer is not a violent felony offender of special concern (§ 948.06(8)(b)) |
| c. | The violation is a low-risk technical violation as defined in § 948.06(9)(b) |
| d. | The court has not previously found the probationer in violation on a filed affidavit during the current term of supervision |
The statute also carries two express escapes: it does not apply where the probationer waives it, and it does not apply in the situation described in subparagraph 3., below.
“Technical” is not the same as “low-risk technical”
This is the trap. § 948.06(1)(c) defines a technical violation broadly — any alleged violation of supervision that is not a new felony, misdemeanor, or criminal traffic offense. But condition (c) above does not use that definition. It borrows the narrower list in § 948.06(9)(b), and that list is exhaustive.
In Garmany v. State, No. 1D2024-1892 (Fla. 1st DCA July 30, 2025), the probationer lied to his probation officer to get permission to visit his girlfriend. That is unquestionably technical — no new crime. The First District affirmed a five-year prison sentence anyway, because lying to a probation officer is not on the (9)(b) list, and the statute contains no “including but not limited to” catch-all: “we lack the authority to add it to the list ourselves.”
The closed list — § 948.06(9)(b)
When committed by a probationer, a “low-risk violation” means any of the following:
| 1. | A positive drug or alcohol test result |
| 2. | Failure to report to the probation office |
| 3. | Failure to report a change in address or other required information |
| 4. | Failure to attend a required class, treatment or counseling session, or meeting |
| 5. | Failure to submit to a drug or alcohol test |
| 6. | A violation of curfew |
| 7. | Failure to meet a monthly quota on any required condition — restitution, court costs, community service hours |
| 8. | Leaving the county without permission |
| 9. | Failure to report a change in employment |
| 10. | Associating with a person engaged in criminal activity |
| 11. | Any other violation designated by administrative order of the circuit’s chief judge |
Item 11 matters in practice: the list is closed as to the statute, but a chief judge’s administrative order can add to it. That is circuit-specific and worth checking locally.
Note the qualifier “when committed by a probationer.” The same conduct by someone on community control is a moderate-risk violation under § 948.06(9)(c)1. — which is why condition (a) limits the mandatory provision to probation in the first place.