TX9: SVP in civil confinement and on probation in Texas has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his stuff

A sexually violent predator in civil confinement and on probation in Texas has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his stuff while confined there. Goodwin v. State, 416 S.W.3d 90 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2013):

Goodwin also contends the seizure violated his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures because the search was not conducted pursuant to a warrant and the State failed to establish either exigent circumstances or consent. Goodwin’s reasonable expectation of privacy diminished by virtue of his dual status as a probationer and a civilly committed person. As a sexually violent predator subject to a commitment order Goodwin does not have an expectation of privacy equal to an individual in society generally. See Serna v. Goodno, 567 F.3d 944, 948 (8th Cir. 2009). As a probationer subject to search as a condition of probation Goodwin had a significantly diminished expectation of privacy. See U.S. v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 119-20, 122 S. Ct. 587, 151 L. Ed. 2d 497 (2001). Where a person is residing in a custodial facility, the State has a legitimate institutional interest in the intrusion. See Soria v. State, 933 S.W.2d 46, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (A “shakedown” of a prisoner’s cell is not unreasonable.); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 557, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1979) (Persons who are detained without having been convicted also have “a diminished expectation of privacy after commitment to a custodial facility[.]”). The sergeant had a legitimate institutional reason to examine Goodwin’s belongings after Goodwin’s grievance questioned the location of his property in the facilities. Under the circumstances, the search was not unreasonable.