This is normal and, as far as we can tell, of unquestioned propriety as far as S.Ct. 1175, 1177, - L.Ed.2d -- (2010) (overruling Riley on Eighth Amendment grounds); Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1490 (11th Cir.1996) ("Claims involving the mistreatment of arrestees or pretrial detainees in custody are governed by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause instead of the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, which applies to such claims by convicted prisoners."); Wilkins v. May, 872 F.2d 190, 192-93 (7th Cir.1989) (noting that, upon conviction, the "the fact, manner, or duration of" a prisoner's "continued confinement is unconstitutional passes over from Fourth Amendment to ... the Eighth Amendment"); Williams v. Boles, 841 F.2d 181, 183 (7th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th
holding that against fourth amendment challenge a judgment convicting a criminal extinguishes for the duration of his sentence his interest in privacy and personal mobility  the applicable provision is the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the elighth almendment holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law holding that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment incorporates the eighth amendments guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment holding that it is cruel and unusual to execute the insane holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved