The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of a habeas petition challenging the petitioner’s initial civil commitment pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). The court held that despite the petitioner’s release from his renewed civil commitment during federal proceedings, the case was not moot because: (1) the requirement that he verify his address and place of employment with the California Department of Justice was a collateral consequence of his prior adjudication as a sexually violent predator; and (2) the court could grant him relief because if his first commitment were unconstitutional, then his re-commitment also would be unconstitutional, and he could be relieved from the reporting requirements. The court also held that the petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the use of documentary hearsay evidence of his child victims’ statements because the commitment proceedings under the SVPA were civil, not criminal. The petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were not violated by the use of this evidence because he waived his right to trial and failed to challenge the victim’s statements in his probation report at the time of sentencing, and because the evidence possessed sufficient indicia of reliability.