How have the courts interpreted the doctrine of waiver in the context of a defendant's failure to object to conditions of probation?

As we have explained, principles of fairness to the People and the trial court and of the need for an orderly and efficient administration of law and judicial economy compel application of the doctrine of waiver to the failure to object to conditions of probation which infringe upon the defendant's personal interests but do not implicate considerations of public policy. A "defendant may not complain of error when he himself had the opportunity and the ability to prevent any ensuing harm." (People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 965, fn. 8, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112, 820 P.2d 214; accord Estelle v. Williams, supra, 425 U.S. at p. 508, 96 S.Ct. at p. 1695.) Because the probation conditions defendant now challenges do not contravene fundamental public policy, defendant waived her right to contest them on appeal by failing to tender an objection in the trial court.