Probation condition restricting appellant to residence approved by probation officer does not violate her constitutional right to travel and association because it relates to the state’s interest in rehabilitation. After pleading guilty to drug offenses, appellant was placed on probation with one condition being that she reside at a residence approved by her probation officer and not move without approval. Appellant asserted this condition was unconstitutionally overbroad, as it violated her right to travel and freedom of association. Affirmed. A probation condition may impinge upon a constitutional right if it serves to rehabilitate and protect public safety. A probation condition should be given a “meaning that would appear to a reasonable, objective reader.” It is therefore presumed a probation officer would not withhold approval for an irrational or arbitrary reason. Appellant was convicted of drug offenses. The location where she lives is directly relevant to the state’s interest in her rehabilitation because without limitations, she might chose to live in a residence where drugs are present and/or sold.