State of Minnesota v. Daniel Roy Luckhardt

Syllabus

In this appeal from the final judgment of conviction for driving while impaired (DWI), appellant Daniel Roy Luckhardt argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress test results that were positive for methamphetamine because random drug testing was not a condition of his probation imposed by the court. Luckhardt also argues that the district court erred by entering convictions for both third- and fourth- degree DWI. Because the district court did not err in denying Luckhardt's motion to suppress, we affirm his conviction of third-degree DWI. We reverse and remand for the limited purpose of vacating the fourth-degree DWI conviction.