violated was not reasonably related to his misdemeanor assault conviction and to his rehabilitation, and (2) that our State Constitution should be interpreted to require probable cause plus exigent circumstances, or at the very least, reasonable suspicion with exigent circumstances, for any warrantless probation-related search of his home. 1. Reasonable Relationship of Condition of Probation to Rehabilitation {15} Defendant seeks constitutional protection against the warrantless search, asserting that the conditions of probation authorizing a warrantless search and prohibiting possession of drugs were not reasonably related to his rehabilitation in connection with his underlying offense of a misdemeanor assault. See State v. Gallagher, 100 N.M. 697, 699, 675 P.2d 429, 431 (Ct.App.1984) (<HOLDING>); State v. Gardner, 95 N.M. 171, 174, 619 P.2d
holding unanimously that a warrantless search of a probationers apartment that was supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized as a condition of his probation was reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment 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 holding that the warrantless search of knights supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation was reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that probationer failed to satisfy the donaldson test for determining if a probation condition is not reasonably related to the probationers rehabilitation and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing random urinalysis as a condition of probation 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