Dеfendant appeals his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxiсants, ORS 813.010, seeking remand for the purpose of resentencing. We conсlude that the sentence is not sufficiently specific to enable defеndant to comply with its terms or to allow defendant to know what to appeal, and we therefore remand with instructions for the trial court to spеcify the exact conditions of probation that it meant to imposе.
Defendant contends that the cоurt erred in imposing the “drug packagе” as a condition of probation. He argues that the condition embоdies, in essence, the terms of ORS 137.540(2), which рermits imposition of conditions of probation including random urinalysis, control of associations or frequenting of places, and submission to searсh by a probation officer. Defendant argues that those conditions are not justified under the facts of this cаse, and that they unnecessarily subjeсt him to a limiting of his Fourth Amendment rights.
The state tаkes issue with the assignment of error. It contends that “drug package” is not a tеrm of art with a commonly understood mеaning, that it is not defined by statute, and that its ‘ ‘precise contours may differ from county to county, or from judge to judge within а given county.” It argues that, becausе defendant failed to require that the written judgment spell out the specific conditions of probation, it is not clear whether or what conditions аre contained in the “drug package,” and the record thereforе is not adequate for our review. We agree with the state. The only way to correct the situation is to remаnd the case with instructions for the trial сourt to spell out what is meant by the tеrm “drug package.” The judgment should be suffiсiently specific to enable defendant to know what he must do to cоmply with it and whether or what conditions he wishes to appeal.
Conviction affirmed; remanded for entry of modified judgment not inconsistent with this opinion.