How have courts interpreted a probation order requiring a minor to submit electronic devices to a search warrant?

show that counsel's deficiencies resulted in prejudice, that is, a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Lopez (2008) 42 Cal.4th 960, 966 (Lopez).)

In this case, defendant's trial counsel may have reasonably concluded that probation with the electronics search condition was the best possible result for defendant. By the time of defendant's sentencing, the appellate court in P.O., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th 288, in response to a contention of unconstitutional overbreadth, had modified an electronics search condition so that it was worded similar to the electronics search condition imposed in this case. (Id. at p. 291.) In In re P.O., the minor admitted that he committed a misdemeanor count of public intoxication, but there was no evidence about his use of electronic devices. (Id. at pp. 292, 294.) The appellate court modified the electronics search condition to require, similar to the condition in this case, the submission of "all electronic devices under your control to a search of any medium of communication reasonably likely to reveal whether you are boasting about your drug use or otherwise involved with drugs, with or without a search warrant, at any time of the day or night, and provide the probation or peace officer with any passwords necessary to access the information specified. Such media of communication include text messages, voicemail messages, photographs, e-mail accounts, and social media accounts." (Id. at p. 300.) Given the existence of case law approving an electronics search condition worded similarly to the probation condition in this case, defendant's "trial counsel could have reasonably concluded that the trial court would not have entertained an objection to the probation condition." (People v. Kendrick (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 769, 779.)