“An otherwise valid probation condition may infringe on the
constitutional rights of the probationer, who is “not entitled to
the same degree of constitutional protection as other citizens.”
(People v. Peck (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 351, 362; People v. Jungers
(2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 698, 703.) However, such probation
conditions must be reasonably related to the compelling public
interests of rehabilitation and protection of the public. (People
v. O’Neil, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1356.) “

“Furthermore, where probation conditions are imposed that
restrict the probationer’s exercise of constitutional rights, the
conditions must be narrowly tailored and sufficiently precise to
avoid unconstitutional overbreadth and vagueness. The “void for
vagueness” doctrine applies to conditions of probation, and is
concerned with constitutionally adequate notice. (People v. Lopez
(1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 630; People v. Reinertson (1986) 178
Cal.App.3d 320, 324-325.) A probation condition “must be
sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required
of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has
been violated. [Citation.]” (People v. Reinertson, at pp. 324-325;
accord, People v. Lopez, at p. 630.) “