What are the constitutional implications of a probation order requiring a defendant to undergo mandatory supervision?

Defendant asserts that the first four of these conditions are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, while the fifth condition is unauthorized under the applicable statutes. The parties contend, and we agree, that we may look to the case law evaluating the constitutionality of probation conditions as analogous to the conditions of mandatory supervision imposed here. (See Pen. Code 1170, subd. (h)(5)(B) ["During the period of mandatory supervision, the defendant shall be supervised by the county probation officer in accordance with the terms, conditions, and procedures generally applicable to persons placed on probation. . . ."]; People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 759, 763-764 [noting that "mandatory supervision is more similar to parole than probation" and that "[t]he validity and reasonableness of parole conditions is analyzed under the same standard as that developed for probation conditions"].)