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
How the protection gets lost
More than one violation
Condition (c) speaks of “the violation” in the singular. The First District read that literally in Schmidt v. State, 310 So. 3d 135, 136–37 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020), holding the statute “applies only to probationers with a single violation of probation” and excludes those with more than one low-risk technical violation. The Third District followed Schmidt in Freeman v. State, No. 3D21-1149 (Fla. 3d DCA July 20, 2022).
Pleading to a new-law violation alongside the technical one
In Kaiser v. State, 322 So. 3d 696, 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), a positive methamphetamine test generated the affidavit — squarely item 1 on the (9)(b) list. But Kaiser pled guilty to two violations, including possessing a drug not prescribed by a physician. The Fourth District held it was “the guilty plea to the two violations . . . that makes section 948.06(2)(f)1. unavailable to him,” and affirmed a 60-month prison sentence. The Sixth District followed Kaiser in Wells v. State, No. 6D2024-1179 (Fla. 6th DCA Oct. 10, 2025).
Judge Gross dissented in Kaiser, arguing that because “[e]very positive drug test result necessarily involves the possession of the ingested drug,” splitting one failed test into two violations “would always preclude a positive drug test from qualifying” — reading item 1 out of the statute. The point has not carried a majority, but it identifies the live tension in this area.
Conduct that is technical but unlisted
Garmany, above. Absconding, stay-away and no-contact order violations are also excluded from alternative sanctioning by § 948.06(9)(d).
“Current term of supervision” — a point in the probationer’s favor
Condition (d) asks only whether the court has previously found a violation during the current term. Garmany held that a prior violation from an earlier, already-revoked probationary term in the same case does not count. Garmany had been violated in 2023, resentenced to prison plus a new probation term, and violated again in 2024 — and the First District held the second violation was still his first in the current term, rejecting the State’s absurdity argument. The statute, the court said, “reflects a rational policy of giving probationers one slender break when adjusting to each current probationary term.”
He lost anyway, on condition (c). But the “current term” holding stands on its own.