In People v. Jungers (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 698, the defendant pled no contest to committing corporal injury upon a cohabitant or child's parent (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)). The defendant later married the victim Martinez and sought modification of a probation condition which had restricted association between them. The condition, as modified, did not preclude any contact between the defendant and his wife but precluded him from initiating contact with her. The defendant complained on appeal that the modified condition violated, inter alia, his rights to association and marital privacy. (Jungers, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at pp. 700-706.) In Jungers, the appellate court stated: "Probation is a privilege and not a right. Because probation conditions foster rehabilitation and protect the public safety, they may infringe the constitutional rights of the defendant, who is 'not entitled to the same degree of constitutional protection as other citizens.' 'Certain intrusions by government which would be invalid under traditional constitutional concepts may be reasonable at least to the extent that such intrusions are required by legitimate governmental demands.' Consequently, restrictions on a probationer's right of association are permissible if reasonably required to accomplish the needs of the state. (People v. Robinson (1988) 199 Cal. App. 3d 816, 838, 'restriction of the right of association is part of the nature of the criminal process'.) However, probation conditions that restrict constitutional rights must be carefully tailored and 'reasonably related to the compelling state interest' in reforming and rehabilitating the defendant. (People v. Mason (1971) 5 Cal.3d 759, 768; People v. Delvalle (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 869, 879.) "Here, Jungers's reasonable expectations of free association and marital privacy have necessarily been reduced by his conviction of a crime--specifically, a felony involving domestic violence against Martinez. Nevertheless, the probation condition restricting Jungers's ability to contact Martinez is valid only if it is reasonably necessary to accomplish the needs of the state and is narrowly tailored to accomplish this goal. We conclude it is." (Jungers, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at pp. 704.)