Probation conditions are unconstitutionally overbroad where they fail to adequately inform defendant what conduct will violate his probation terms. Appellant was found guilty of committing a lewd act on a child in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation. Appellant challenged a number of his probation conditions. The Court of Appeal found some of the conditions infirm because they lacked a knowledge requirement and ordered them changed to conform to constitutional requirements. The court acknowledged the Third District’s recent opinion in People v. Patel (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 956, which held the court would construe probation conditions to contain a knowledge requirement and would no longer entertain appellate challenges to such terms. While Division Three of the Fourth District likewise stated an intent to read a knowledge requirement into all probation conditions, it nonetheless chose to modify and strike certain challenged terms in this case and by its opinion directed the superior court to revise its preprinted form to meet constitutional requirements, thereby avoiding repetitive appellate challenges to its probation terms.