Is a probationary condition that requires a defendant to submit electronic devices to search and seizure unconstitutional?

Defendant contends, pursuant to Riley v. California (2014) ___ U.S. ___ [134 S.Ct. 2473] (warrantless search of defendant's cell phone was constitutionally infirm), that the probationary condition requiring that defendant submit electronic devices in his possession to search and seizure by officers is unconstitutionally overbroad. Assuming defendant did not waive or forfeit a challenge to the condition, we hold that it was not unconstitutionally overbroad.

"A probation condition is constitutionally overbroad when it substantially limits a person's rights and those limitations are not closely tailored to the purpose of the condition." (People v. Harrisson (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 637, 641, citing In re White (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 141, 146 ["'. . . The Constitution, the statute, all case law, demand and authorize only "reasonable" conditions, not just conditions "reasonably related" to the crime committed.' [Citation.] [] Careful scrutiny of an unusual and severe probation condition is appropriate."].)