PER CURIAM.
The appellant's probation was revoked based solely upon hearsay, which included the testimony of a police officer concerning a witness's identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime of exposure of sexual organs. This constituted hearsay because the witness did not testify at the revocation hearing. § 90.801 (2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995); Harrell v. State, 647 So.2d 1016, 1017-18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). "While hearsay evidence is admissible in probation revocation proceedings, hearsay alone is insufficient to establish a violation of a condition of probation." Kiess v. State, 642 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in revoking appellant's probation. We reverse and remand for a new hearing on appellant's alleged violation. See Arnold v. State, 497 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Purvis v. State, 420 So.2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Robbins v. State, 318 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Reversed and remanded.
DELL, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.