In a recent ruling, the Florida District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court's decision finding Antonio Bass Velazquez in violation of his sex offender probation. The court's decision, delivered on October 7, 2026, affirmed that evidence derived from Velazquez's mandatory polygraph test results was permissible in determining his probation violations. This ruling could affect how evidence from polygraph tests is treated in future probation cases.
Antonio Velazquez, who pled guilty to attempted sexual battery in May 2022, received an 18-month prison sentence followed by two years of sex offender probation. His probation included requirements to undergo periodic polygraph examinations and complete a psychosexual treatment program. In December 2024, the State of Florida filed a violation of probation (VOP) affidavit against Velazquez, citing ten specific violations of his probation terms.
The violations included accessing the internet, possessing an unprescribed drug, providing alcohol to a minor, leaving Alachua County without permission, driving with a suspended license, failing to comply with curfew, and not completing his treatment program. The affidavit noted that the first seven violations were confirmed by Velazquez’s admissions to his probation officer, Ann-Marie Brown.
Velazquez contested the admission of his statements, arguing that they were derived from questions based on his polygraph test results, which he claimed could not be used as evidence under Florida law. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss, stating that the polygraph results were not used directly as evidence but rather indirectly to prompt questioning by Brown.
During the VOP hearing, Brown testified about the polygraph examination Velazquez took in November 2024. She expressed concern over some of his answers and further questioned him, leading to his admissions regarding the alleged violations. Similarly, Craig Batchelor, Velazquez's treatment provider, also testified about his concerns stemming from the polygraph results and the admissions that followed.
The trial court ultimately found that Velazquez had willfully and substantially violated the conditions of his probation, except for two allegations related to arrears. The court extended Velazquez’s probation by 18 months, ordered him to wear electronic monitoring for six months, and allowed for early termination upon successful completion of all terms.
On appeal, Velazquez maintained that the evidence of his violations was inadmissible under section 948.30(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes, which prohibits the use of polygraph results as evidence in court. He argued that the questions posed by his probation officer and treatment provider circumvented this prohibition.
The court ruled that the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. It noted that section 948.30(2)(a) only prohibits the use of polygraph results as evidence in court and does not restrict the use of admissions made separately from the actual polygraph results. The court emphasized that the State did not attempt to admit the actual polygraph results, and thus the prohibition did not apply.
Furthermore, the court stated that the prohibition in section 948.30(2)(a) applies only to the use of polygraph results as evidence “in court” and does not prevent probation officers or treatment providers from using those results in investigations. The court pointed out that the legislative intent behind requiring polygraph examinations is to facilitate further inquiry into a probationer’s behavior.
Even if the court had found Velazquez's argument valid, it noted that affirmance would still be warranted based on his failure to complete the treatment program, which was a separate violation. The court concluded that the trial court would have imposed the same extension of probation based solely on this violation.
The ruling sets a significant precedent regarding the admissibility of evidence derived from polygraph tests in probation violation cases. It clarifies that while the results of polygraph tests cannot be used as direct evidence in court, admissions made in response to inquiries based on those results can be considered valid.
This decision may influence how future cases involving sex offender probation are handled, particularly in relation to the use of polygraph examinations. It underscores the importance of compliance with probation terms and the potential consequences of violations.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Velazquez will seek further appeal options. The court's decision is not final until the disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331. Details regarding any related cases or further legal actions were not available in the court filing.