field test in Florida

2016Compare Queior, 157 So.3d at 371 (“Because the State failed to present competent, nonhearsay evidence of Mr. Queior’s use of a drug or narcotic not prescribed by a physician, we reverse the order revoking probation and the resulting sentences.”) (emphasis added), 'with id. at 375 (concluding that the certified conflict case, Terry , “incorrectly equates the probation officer’s expertise in performing a field test with scientific testimony about how the test works to establish the test’s reliability”).

2016Compare Queior, 157 So.3d at 371 (“Because the State failed to present competent, nonhearsay evidence of Mr. Queior’s use of a drug or narcotic not prescribed by a physician, we reverse the order revoking probation and the resulting sentences.”) (emphasis added), 'with id. at 375 (concluding that the certified conflict case, Terry , “incorrectly equates the probation officer’s expertise in performing a field test with scientific testimony about how the test works to establish the test’s reliability”).

2015See Terry, 777 So.2d at 1094 ; Carter v. State, 82 So.3d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (distinguishing Terry where probation officer testifying to test results “gave no indication that he was certified to administer the test, or had in fact administered it with any frequency”); Weaver v. State, 543 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that the officer’s testimony about the field test results, standing alone, could not support the finding of a violation where the officer did not even know the name of the field test or that it was reliable).

2015Carter parenthetically compared Terry, 777 So.2d 1093, in which the Fifth District found the testimony of an officer regarding a field test was sufficient because although he was untrained in pharmacology or chemistry, “he testified as to the nature of the field test and how it was performed.

2015But, the Third District Court of Appeal properly characterized the probation officer’s testimony as “non-hearsay.” See id. at 443 . (“Nevertheless, the only non-hearsay evidence introduced into the record showing that the white substance delivered to the undercover agents was, in fact, heroin, was the testimony of Agent Brinson who said he conducted a field test oh the substance shortly after it was delivered.” (emphasis added)).

2015See Terry, 777 So.2d at 1094 ; Carter v. State, 82 So.3d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (distinguishing Terry where probation officer testifying to test results “gave no indication that he was certified to administer the test, or had in fact administered it with any frequency”); Weaver v. State, 543 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that the officer’s testimony about the field test results, standing alone, could not support the finding of a violation where the officer did not even know the name of the field test or that it was reliable).

2015See Terry, 777 So.2d at 1094 ; Carter v. State, 82 So.3d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (distinguishing Terry where probation officer testifying to test results “gave no indication that he was certified to administer the test, or had in fact administered it with any frequency”); Weaver v. State, 543 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that the officer’s testimony about the field test results, standing alone, could not support the finding of a violation where the officer did not even know the name of the field test or that it was reliable).

2015See Carter v. State, 82 So.3d 993, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that a field test alone was not competent evidence of drug use when the officer performing the test did not know the name of the test or how it worked scientifically and he acknowledged that the test had been inaccurate on a prior occasion); Bray, 75 So.3d at 750 (holding that two community control officers’ testimony that they had conducted hundreds of urinalyses failed to establish their expertise regarding narcotics or drug testing and thus their testimony about the results of the field test they performed was hearsay); Wea

2016See Queior, 191 So.3d at 393 (“[GJiven the established reliability of field drug tests and their commonplace use in VOP proceedings, which are subject to relaxed evidentiary standards and a lesser burden of proof than a criminal trial, requiring the State to trot out an expert in a case ... where the field test has been confirmed by a lab test is unnecessary to satisfy the conscience of the court that a probation violation has, in fact, occurred.”); see also Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 647 (Fla.2008) (holding that the State need not independently establish every aspect of a violation with

2016A probation officer “testifying at hearing, subject to cross-examination, to what [he or] she personally did and observed .... is classic non-hearsay testimony.” Bell, 179 So.3d at 356 ; see also Turner v. State, 179 So.3d 526, 528-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (concluding probation officer’s testimony about a field drug test he personally conducted and the test results he personally observed “was based on his own personal observations and knowledge and, therefore, the testimony was not hearsay”); Isaac v. State, 971 So.2d 908, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (concluding trial court’s finding of a probation v

2017Moreover, “[f]or purposes of forefeiture, positive results in a field test furnish sufficient proof as to the existence of contraband.” One (1) 1982 28’ Int’l Vessel, 741 F.2d at 1322 (citing United States v. One (1) 1972 Wood, 19’ Custom Boat, 501 F.2d 1327, 1329-30 (5th Cir. 1974)).

2017Moreover, "[f]or purposes of forefeiture, positive results in a field test furnish sufficient proof as to the existence of contraband." One (1) 1982 28' Int'l Vessel, 741 F.2d at 1322 (citing United States v. One Wood, 19' Custom Boat, 501 F.2d 1327, 1329-30 (5th Cir. 1974)).

2016Cf. United States v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640, 643 (8th Cir.1986) (explaining that “urinalysis laboratoly reports bear substantial indicia of reliability” as “the regular reports of a company whose business it is to conduct such tests, and which expects its clients to act on the basis of its reports”). 4 Queior argues that simply because the results of such tests, which may not always *394 be accurate, have long been used to violate probation is not a valid basis for allowing that practice to continue.

2016A probation officer “testifying at hearing, subject to cross-examination, to what [he or] she personally did and observed .... is classic non-hearsay testimony.” Bell, 179 So.3d at 356 ; see also Turner v. State, 179 So.3d 526, 528-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (concluding probation officer’s testimony about a field drug test he personally conducted and the test results he personally observed “was based on his own personal observations and knowledge and, therefore, the testimony was not hearsay”); Isaac v. State, 971 So.2d 908, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (concluding trial court’s finding of a probation v

2016A probation officer “testifying at hearing, subject to cross-examination, to what [he or] she personally did and observed .... is classic non-hearsay testimony.” Bell, 179 So.3d at 356 ; see also Turner v. State, 179 So.3d 526, 528-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (concluding probation officer’s testimony about a field drug test he personally conducted and the test results he personally observed “was based on his own personal observations and knowledge and, therefore, the testimony was not hearsay”); Isaac v. State, 971 So.2d 908, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (concluding trial court’s finding of a probation v

2016A probation officer “testifying at hearing, subject to cross-examination, to what [he or] she personally did and observed .... is classic non-hearsay testimony.” Bell, 179 So.3d at 356 ; see also Turner v. State, 179 So.3d 526, 528-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (concluding probation officer’s testimony about a field drug test he personally conducted and the test results he personally observed “was based on his own personal observations and knowledge and, therefore, the testimony was not hearsay”); Isaac v. State, 971 So.2d 908, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (concluding trial court’s finding of a probation v

2016See Queior, 191 So.3d at 393 (“[GJiven the established reliability of field drug tests and their commonplace use in VOP proceedings, which are subject to relaxed evidentiary standards and a lesser burden of proof than a criminal trial, requiring the State to trot out an expert in a case ... where the field test has been confirmed by a lab test is unnecessary to satisfy the conscience of the court that a probation violation has, in fact, occurred.”); see also Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 647 (Fla.2008) (holding that the State need not independently establish every aspect of a violation with

2016See Queior, 191 So.3d at 393 (“[GJiven the established reliability of field drug tests and their commonplace use in VOP proceedings, which are subject to relaxed evidentiary standards and a lesser burden of proof than a criminal trial, requiring the State to trot out an expert in a case ... where the field test has been confirmed by a lab test is unnecessary to satisfy the conscience of the court that a probation violation has, in fact, occurred.”); see also Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 647 (Fla.2008) (holding that the State need not independently establish every aspect of a violation with

2016On Mr. Ware’s second point, we note that following a revocation, “the sentencing court must maintain the defendant’s youthful offender status upon resen-tencing for a violation of probation even when the violation was substantive.” Yegge v. State, 88 So.3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); see also Godson v. State, 160 So.3d 496 , 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quoting Yegge for the foregoing proposition).

2016On Mr. Ware’s second point, we note that following a revocation, “the sentencing court must maintain the defendant’s youthful offender status upon resen-tencing for a violation of probation even when the violation was substantive.” Yegge v. State, 88 So.3d 1058, 1059-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); see also Godson v. State, 160 So.3d 496 , 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quoting Yegge for the foregoing proposition).

2015See Terry, 777 So.2d at 1094 .

2015In Terry v. State, 846 So.2d 1232, 1232-33 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), a different panel of the Fifth District held that a probation officer's testimony concerning the performance and results of the field test of the sort approved in the earlier appearance of Mr. Terry before the court would "support a finding of probation violation as long as the testing is not the sole basis for the finding.” (Emphasis added.)- The qualification requiring some corroborating evidence in addition to the results of the field test in order to support a finding of a violation of probation does not appear in the Fifth Di

2015See Carter v. State, 82 So.3d 993, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that a field test alone was not competent evidence of drug use when the officer performing the test did not know the name of the test or how it worked scientifically and he acknowledged that the test had been inaccurate on a prior occasion); Bray, 75 So.3d at 750 (holding that two community control officers’ testimony that they had conducted hundreds of urinalyses failed to establish their expertise regarding narcotics or drug testing and thus their testimony about the results of the field test they performed was hearsay); Wea

2015See Carter v. State, 82 So.3d 993, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that a field test alone was not competent evidence of drug use when the officer performing the test did not know the name of the test or how it worked scientifically and he acknowledged that the test had been inaccurate on a prior occasion); Bray, 75 So.3d at 750 (holding that two community control officers’ testimony that they had conducted hundreds of urinalyses failed to establish their expertise regarding narcotics or drug testing and thus their testimony about the results of the field test they performed was hearsay); Wea

2015See Carter v. State, 82 So.3d 993, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that a field test alone was not competent evidence of drug use when the officer performing the test did not know the name of the test or how it worked scientifically and he acknowledged that the test had been inaccurate on a prior occasion); Bray, 75 So.3d at 750 (holding that two community control officers’ testimony that they had conducted hundreds of urinalyses failed to establish their expertise regarding narcotics or drug testing and thus their testimony about the results of the field test they performed was hearsay); Wea

2015See Carter v. State, 82 So.3d 993, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that a field test alone was not competent evidence of drug use when the officer performing the test did not know the name of the test or how it worked scientifically and he acknowledged that the test had been inaccurate on a prior occasion); Bray, 75 So.3d at 750 (holding that two community control officers’ testimony that they had conducted hundreds of urinalyses failed to establish their expertise regarding narcotics or drug testing and thus their testimony about the results of the field test they performed was hearsay); Wea

2012See also Smith v. State, 835 So.2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (concluding "that the field test alone does not make a prima facie case” for trafficking).