State appeals court Good law

King v. State

268 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)

Walking away from a GPS tracking unit for about five minutes, with no evidence of intent, is not a willful and substantial probation violation.

Court
Florida First District Court of Appeal
Decided
April 22, 2019
Reach
Binding on Florida trial courts absent a conflicting district decision; controls in the First District, including Leon County
Verified
October 22, 2026

Good law. Still followed. Later cases may have narrowed it — see Scope. Binds lower courts in its district or state until the state high court says otherwise.

What happened

A man on sex-offender probation in Alachua County, living in a homeless shelter, left his monitoring device on its charger in the shelter’s welcome center and walked into the cafeteria. He was away from it for about five minutes and explained what happened when the monitoring company called. The trial court found he willfully violated the monitoring condition, as well as conditions on treatment and monitoring fees, and revoked and reinstated his probation on modified terms.

What the court decided

The First District reversed. “Evidence that a probationer walked away from a monitoring device for a brief period of time is not competent, substantial evidence of a substantial and willful violation,” and the State offered no evidence he intentionally violated the monitoring rules. It also reversed the treatment and $4.50-a-day monitoring-fee findings because the State never showed he was able to pay.

Why it matters to the Registry

It is the clearest published Florida holding on a short separation from the separate tracking unit used in two-piece GPS monitoring, and it comes from the district whose decisions control in Leon County and the rest of the First District.

What it did not decide

It did not define how long a separation may last, or address a pattern of repeated separations or a known rule deliberately ignored. It decided whether a violation was proved, not whether an officer may arrest on the alert.

Developments

  1. First District reverses the revocation order.

Legal Disclaimer

These are plain-language summaries of court decisions, written for general education. A ruling binds only the courts beneath the court that issued it, later decisions and new laws can change what it means, and how it applies to any one person depends on facts a summary cannot capture. Read the opinion itself, and talk to a lawyer licensed in your state before relying on any case. This page is not legal advice.