The State appeals from the circuit court's order in limine that excluded from aprobation revocation hearing the results of the defendant's urine test by means of a certifiedlaboratory report. The State has filed a certificate of impairment and appeals.

On July 27, 1998, pursuant to negotiations while represented by counsel, Jillena L.Renner (defendant) pleaded guilty to driving while license revoked (625 ILCS 5/6-303(c)(1), (d) (West 1996)) and was sentenced to 24 months' probation. In its order, thecircuit court listed the following as incidents of probation:

"19. The defendant shall refrain from having in his or her body the presence of anyillicit drug prohibited by the Cannabis Control Act or the Illinois ControlledSubstances Act, unless prescribed by a physician, and shall submit samples ofhis or her blood or urine or both for tests to determine the presence of anyillicit drug. The defendant shall submit to any breath, blood[,] or urine testrequested by the Probation Officer at his or her own expense. The defendantagrees that any written or printed laboratory result from a certified laboratoryshall be admissible in any proceeding to revoke this order of probation.

20. The defendant shall submit to any urine test requested by his or her ProbationOfficer at his or her own expense. The defendant agrees that any result oftesting at the Probation Office is admissible in any proceeding to revoke thisOrder of Probation. The defendant acknowledges that the cost incident todrug testing at the Christian County Probation Office is $6.00 per testrequested."

On February 4, 1999, the State filed a petition to revoke probation, which alleged thatdefendant tested positive for THC (cannabis) and cocaine on November 2, 1998, and testedpositive for THC in the Christian County probation office on December 3, 1998. On March23, 1998, an amended petition to revoke probation was filed, which added an allegation thatdefendant willfully failed to pay fines, costs, and/or probation fees totaling $1,180.

On May 26, 1999, defendant filed a motion in limine, which alleged that theintroduction into evidence at the probation revocation hearing of LabCorp's writtendocument purporting to be a confirmation of LabCorp's test results of defendant's urinewould be hearsay. The motion further alleged that any purported waiver of theinadmissibility of confirmation would be unconstitutional as a violation of her fundamentaldue process rights.

At the May 28, 1999, hearing on defendant's motion in limine, defendant argued thatevidence of her urine samples was inadmissible because a reliable foundation for theadmission of the drug screens into evidence had not been established and the type ofconfirmation test used on the urine samples was unknown. Defendant also argued thatevidence of the results of the urine tests is hearsay. She further argued that the waiver shesigned, when she signed the probation order, is unconstitutional because she has a right toconfront the witnesses against her and to cross-examine those witnesses (U.S. Const.,amend. VI; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,