Defendant’s probation search conditions included consent to search his property, and his cell phone was properly searched. “An additional consideration supports our conclusion Barth consented to the search of his cellular phone for non-investigatory purposes. Barth was participating in the sex offender treatment program. The ‘sex offender treatment program was established for bona fide rehabilitative purposes.’ State v. Washington, 832 N.W.2d 650, 660 (Iowa 2013). ‘Rehabilitation is a legitimate penological interest that must be weighed against [a probationer’s] liberty.’ Id. Participation in the sex offender treatment program for rehabilitative purposes ‘may impose difficult choices on defendants to serve a valid penological goal without crossing the line into unconstitutional compulsion.’ Id. Here, Barth entered into the Sex Offender Treatment Program Contract/Supervision Agreement, which required Barth’s consent to search his cellular phone. The purpose of the consent to search was to allow the Department of Correctional Services to ensure Barth was not engaging in conduct that might otherwise be lawful (e.g., viewing pornography) but contrary to his rehabilitative goals. [¶] Even if Barth had not consented to the search of his cellular phone, the search of his cellular phone was authorized by the special needs doctrine.” State v. Barth, 2016 Iowa App. LEXIS 144 (Feb. 24, 2016).