Does an evidence technician/property room technician have any reasonable expectation of privacy while in the property/evidence room? At this point, there are only three department personnel that have access to that room at any given time. Would the evidence tech have a valid argument of invasion of privacy if a camera was installed (without his knowledge), and he was disciplined/terminated upon uncovering any wrong doing on his part?

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff's Assoc. v. County of Sacramento, 51 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1487 (19960 has a good discussion of this with similar facts to your case:

"We recognize the deputy sheriffs may have a reasonable expectation of privacy against being videotaped in certain portions of the jail, such as the deputies' bathroom or locker room (areas set aside for private activity) or perhaps under some circumstances an office assigned to the exclusive use of one person. However, the Release Office is not such a place. It serves as an integral component of the system for recording and releasing inmates' property, and it is a room to which inmates have access.The nature of the room is such that it is not private. It is a room in which jail security concerns are appropriate and in which plaintiffs have a diminished expectation of privacy.Consequently, the rules allowing jail surveillance should apply.

That the surveillance took place in the Release Office, which is not generally used by inmates, does not insulate that location from the institutional security needs of the jail. Federal cases recognize that the threat to institutional security may come from employees as well as inmates." (E.g., Sec. & Law Enforcement Emp., Dist. Council 82 v. Carey, supra, 737 F.2d 187.)

Please disregard the pin cite.