Filed September 19, 2014
Thus,there is no real impact on appellant’s right to travel or to conductlegitimate business with other commercial enterprises. (See Jn re Michael D. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1610, 1617 [probation condition barring minor from “gang gathering areas” in his neighborhood was “neither unreasonably vague nor unconstitutional”]; In re Ramon M. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 665, 678 [same].) This is not a case like People v. White (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 141, where the defendant was barred from broad swathsofthe city and from many different types of establishments where she mightsleep,eat, socialize, or find entertainment.