by the Fourth Amendment, the maintenance of prison security and the preservation of institutional order and discipline are ‘essential goals that may require limitation or retraction of the retained constitutional rights of both convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees.’ ” 860 F.2d at 21 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979)). Accordingly, where a facility provides some notice to inmates that calls may be monitored, the facility’s “practice of automatically taping and randomly monitoring telephone calls of inmates in the interest of institutional security is not an unreasonable invasion of the privacy rights of pretrial detainees” or of “noninmates” who receive calls from pretrial detainees. Id. at 21-22; see also Amen, 831 F.2d at 379-80 (<HOLDING>). B. Rodriguez’s Challenges to His Convictions
holding that routine monitoring and recording of the calls of convicted prisoners does not violate the prisoners fourth amendment rights holding that policy requiring strip searches of prisoners prior to transfer did not violate fourth amendment holding that hudson overruled bells assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners fourth amendment rights holding that a prison official can violate a prisoners eighth amendment rights by failing to intervene holding that routine strip searches of pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners conducted after contact visits were constitutional