citation omitted). 65 . Hall, 856 N.Y.S.2d 540, 886 N.E.2d at 166 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 66 . United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) (quoting Cortez, 449 U.S. at 418, 101 S.Ct. 690). 67 . Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 123-24, 120 S.Ct. 673 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 68 . Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). 69 . Redding, 129 S.Ct. at 2649 n. 3 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 616, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989)). See also Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 560, 99 S.Ct. 1861. 70 . People v. Hall, 10 N.Y.3d 303, 856 N.Y.S.2d 540, 886 N.E.2d 162, 166-67 (2008) (<HOLDING>). 71 . Conceivably, Scott might have fastened
holding that prison officials may conduct visual body cavity searches in a reasonable manner holding a visual strip and visual cavity search unreasonable when done beside a police car holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant holding that a visual body cavity inspection may be conducted based on reasonable suspicion but if the visual inspection reveals the presence of a suspicious object inside the body cavity schmerber requires the police to obtain a warrant authorizing the removal of the object unless there are exigent circumstances holding probable cause to be required for strip and visual body cavity searches