Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the crime. Id. at 982-84, 512 N.W.2d at 261. Again, Evans is readily distinguishable from our case because there the government was seeking money expended in the course of a criminal investigation. Evans, like Schmaling, does not contradict our holding that the plain meaning of "victim" under § 973.20(lr), Stats., encompasses political entities. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err by imposing restitution to the United States government. By the Court. — Judgment and order affirmed. 1 We note that Howard-Hastings appeals a sentence imposed by the court, not a condition of probation. A sentencing court has broader authority to impose restitution as a condition of probation. Compare State v. Connelly, 143 Wis. 2d 500, 505-06, 421 N.W.2d 859, 861 (Ct. App. 1988) (<HOLDING>), with State v. Evans, 181 Wis. 2d 978, 982-84, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding defendant agreed to submit to searches as a condition of probation (B) holding that defendant could be required to reimburse state for buy money in drug case as a condition of probation (C) recognizing that probation condition required probationer to enter into and successfully complete a sex offender treatment program but finding that no condition of probation was imposed that required him to admit to a counselor the sexual acts charged (D) holding that the requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which must be pronounced at sentencing (E) holding that a defendant is not entitled to credit for time served as a condition of probation
Output (English): holding that the requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which must be pronounced at sentencing