but were not provided to Doe until after Bobbouine and Foy’s alleged misbehavior in the Decontamination Area. Accordingly, dismissing Doe’s Fourteenth Amendment claim was error at this stage, and we will reverse and remand this matter to the District Court for further proceedings. B. Search and Seizure under the Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and. seizures.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. The phrase “searches and seizures” connotes that the Fourth Amendment regulates conduct that is “somehow designed to elicit a benefit for the government in an investigatory or, more broadly, an administrative capacity.” United States v. Attson, 900 F.2d 1427, 1429 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the Supreme Court has stated that
holding defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in blood sample drawn by hospital holding blood sample does not constitute compelled testimony holding that a test of a urine sample implicates the fourth amendment holding that a physician employed by the government who drew a blood sample from the defendant for medical not investigatory purposes did not conduct a search under the fourth amendment holding that doctor who drew blood for purely medical reasons did not possess the requisite intent to engage in a search or seizure under the fourth amendment