Is a probation condition that requires a defendant to submit to warrantless searches invalid?

Defendant argues that the probation condition that he submit to warrantless searches is invalid because no nexus exists between his offenses and the condition. He acknowledges that People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 237, held that failure to object to a probation condition precludes a challenge to the condition on appeal, but argues that his counsel's failure to object to the condition constituted ineffective assistance. Since we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the condition, we reject defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

A trial court has broad discretion to impose such reasonable probation conditions "as it may determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done ... and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer...." (Pen. Code 1203.1, subd. (j).) "A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it `(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality....' [Citation.] Conversely, a condition of probation which requires or forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality." (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486.)