that governs the admission of new commitments to the ISC, contains no language concerning what factors might give rise to the reasonable suspicion that would permit a constitutional strip and visual body cavity search. Policy number 9.14-1 states that strip searches for controlling contraband in the facility shall “be conducted for objective purposes only.” Nevertheless, it does not provide any guideposts respecting which objective criteria might give rise to reasonable suspicion, which would permit a constitutional strip and visual body cavity search. See, e.g., Weber, 804 F.2d at 802 (dicta suggesting that particularized suspicion might arise from the nature of the charge and the specific circumstances surrounding the arrest); Dufrin v. Spreen, 712 F.2d 1084, 1087 (6th Cir.1983)(<HOLDING>); Logan, 660 F.2d at 1013 (finding blanket
holding that the custodial strip search of plaintiff who had been arrested for first degree harassment arising from a domestic dispute was unconstitutional recognizing that police officers generally do not need warrant to search person they have lawfully arrested holding that mandatory visual strip search policy in county jail was unconstitutional holding that acquiescence to a strip and body cavity search did not extend the scope of defendants consent to search his person because of the highly intrusive nature of the search holding strip search constitutional where police arrested the plaintiff for felonious assault