Is a probation condition that prohibits the possession of instruments to implement graffiti or does not give adequate notice about what is prohibited?

Appellant argues the term "instruments to implement graffiti" fails to give adequate notice about what he is prohibited from possessing. Not so. A probation condition will not be held void for vagueness "'"if any reasonable and practical construction can be given its language or if its terms may be made reasonably certain by reference to other definable sources."'" (People v. Lopez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 630.) We agree with respondent that probation condition No. 43 gives adequate notice about the items appellant is prohibited from possessing. The phrase "instruments to implement graffiti" is not impermissibly vague. He may not possess tools that are used to apply graffiti. The nonexclusive list of items set forth as examples of prohibited items gives appellant reasonable notice of the types of items that he is prohibited from possessing.

Appellant also argues this condition is overbroad because it could be interpreted to preclude his possession of an array of items used as study aids or in art and vocational classes. A probation condition is to be interpreted as it would be understood by a reasonable person. (People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382.) Appellant has invited an unreasonable construction of this probation condition. Reasonably read, it does not prohibit possession of highlighter pens or art supplies necessary to complete school work.