Is section 3003.5(b) of the California Criminal Code unconstitutional because it restricts a person's right to travel?

Petitioners also assert that section 3003.5(b) is unconstitutional because it infringes on their right to travel. They claim that the constitutional prohibition against banishment is based, in part, on the fundamental constitutional right to travel. They cite case law demonstrating that the right to travel includes the right to migrate and relocate. However, it is clear that parolees do not share the same rights enjoyed by other individuals. Although parolees retain constitutional protection against arbitrary and oppressive official action[,] [parole conditions] may govern a parolee's residence, his associates or living companions, his travel, his use of intoxicants, and other aspects of his life. ( Terhune v. Superior Court (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 864, 874, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 841.) The trial court did not conclude that the restriction on petitioners' right to travel was improper. Rather, the court found that banishment as a condition of parole was not permitted because it impermissibly impinges on constitutional entitlementsthe right to travel and freedom of association. [Citations.]