][is] to be reviewed de novo.” Id. at 145-46, 870 P.2d at 107-08. {13} We review whether a court’s imposition of a condition of probation is lawful under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Donaldson, 100 N.M. 111, 119-20, 666 P.2d 1258, 1266-67 (Ct.App.1983) (stating that the district court has broad discretion in imposing probation and “the court’s discretion will not be set aside on review unless the terms and conditions of probation (1) have no reasonable relationship to the offense for which defendant was convicted, (2) relate to activity which is not itself criminal in nature[,] and (3) require or forbid conduct which is not reasonably related to deterring future criminality”); see also State v. McCoy, 116 N.M. 491, 499-500, 864 P.2d 307, 315-16 (Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. State v.
holding a warrantless probation search condition that is reasonably related to a probationers rehabilitation is a valid limitation to a defendants fourth amendment rights holding that a probationers challenge to a condition of his probation was moot in light of the supreme courts reversal of the underlying conviction and the probationers apparent completion of probation  holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing on defendant as condition of probation joint and several liability with codefendant for restitution of full amount of losses caused by their crime holding that warrantless search as probation condition was a valid limitation to the defendants fourth amendment rights when defendant asserted the condition was not reasonably related to rehabilitation holding that probationer failed to satisfy two of the three prongs of the donaldson test for determining if a probation condition was reasonably related to the probationers rehabilitation and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing random urinalysis as a condition of probation