P.

DISCUSSION

Amparan contends probation conditions 19, 20, and 30 are constitutionally vague because they do not have a knowledge element. We disagree.

“Trial courts have broad discretion to prescribe probation conditions to foster rehabilitation and protect public safety. [Citations.] A probation condition that imposes limitations upon constitutional rights must be narrowly tailored to achieve legitimate purposes. [Citations.] Further, „[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,” if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness. [Citation.]‟ [Citations.] „A probation condition which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates due process.‟ [Citations.] The „underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of “fair warning.” [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of “the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential…