Submitted March 4; portion of judgment imposing special condition of probation reversed, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed March 24, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VALERIE BLANCHE NELSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Washington County Circuit Court 18CR43974; A171572 483 P3d 1261

Beth L. Roberts, Judge.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Brett J. Allin, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.

PER CURIAM Portion of judgment imposing special condition of pro- bation reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

220 State v. Nelson PER CURIAM Defendant appeals her convictions for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, unlawful possession of hydrocodone, ORS 475.814, reckless driving, ORS 811.140, and two counts of failure to perform the duties of a driver, ORS 811.700. She raises issues concerning exclu- sion of evidence and imposition of fines that we reject with- out written discussion. She also argues that the trial court erred in including in the written judgment a special condi- tion of probation that she “submit to search[es] of person, residence, vehicle and property by the supervising officer.”

ORS 137.540(1)(i) provides a general condition of probation that requires a probationer to consent to such searches “if the supervising officer has reasonable grounds to believe that evidence of a violation will be found.” As this court con- cluded in State v. Bowden, 292 Or App 815, 818, 425 P3d 475 (2018), a court may not impose a special condition of probation that “overrides a general condition and for which the limitations of a general condition need not be followed.” (Emphasis in original.) The condition imposed here would effectively override the general condition set forth in ORS 137.540(1)(i). The state concedes that this probation condi- tion was impermissible. We agree and accept the state’s con- cession. We note that we reached the same conclusion, with respect to a similar Washington County condition of pro- bation, in State v. Vanhorn, 310 Or App 224, 483 P3d 1257 (2021).

Portion of judgment imposing special condition of probation reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.