and its finding that probationer officers must be able to conduct warrant-less searches in order to properly supervise their probationers, we conclude that the statute provides the necessary notice _” (footnote omitted)); Soca, 673 So.2d at 28 (“Florida’s statutes contain no scheme expressly authorizing or regulating the authority of probation officers or supervisors to conduct a probationary search.... Rather, a probation officer’s right to search is based on our holding in Grubbs....”); see also State v. Yule, 905 So.2d 251, 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“[T]he authority of the probation officers to monitor and control the probationer ... provided a sufficient basis for them to enter her residence and conduct a warrantless search.”); Ayoub v. State, 901 So.2d 311, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). Extending the same general authority to
holding warrantless search of probationers home by law enforcement officer for investigatory purposes was reasonable when conditions of probation included a search term and search was supported by reasonable suspicion holding that all special conditions of probation must be orally pronounced at sentencing holding condition of probation requiring probationer to consent at any time to a warrantless search by a law enforcement officer was unconstitutional recognizing that condition requiring submission to search by probation officer need not be orally pronounced because warrantless searches are necessary for proper supervision of probationers citing brown 697 so2d at 929 holding a warrantless probation search condition that is reasonably related to a probationers rehabilitation is a valid limitation to a defendants fourth amendment rights