needed in the practice of Native American religion. Thus, our reasoning for upholding IDOC’s tobacco ban does not extend to a ban on smoking non-tobacco elements in a religious setting. Relatedly, concerns over the impact of smoke on other inmates and the presence of fire inside the institution could be significantly addressed by simply directing that the ceremonies be conducted outside in the exercise yard. Although IMSI officials expressed concern about the presence of fire and smoke, testimony indicated that the fire marshal was never consulted about the possible alternative of conducting the ceremony outdoors. See e.g., Skenandore v. Endicott, 2006 WL 2587545 (E.D.Wis.) (disallowing smudging in cells, but allowing it outside); Greybuffalo v. Frank, 2003 WL 23211615 (W.D.Wis.) (<HOLDING>). Finally, in regard to concerns about safety
holding seizure of arrestees cell phone lawful but finding the fourth amendment requires a warrant to perform a forensic search of the lawfully seized cell phone holding that warrantless searches of cell phones incident to arrest should not be allowed because such searches cannot be justified by officer safety or the preservation of evidence given the privacy implications inherent in cell phone data searches holding that disallowing smudging in ones cell was not a substantial burden where smudging was allowed elsewhere holding the defendant lacked any expectation of privacy in his cell so the jailer had the right to inspect anything in his cell holding no eighth amendment violation where prisoner was placed in a strip cell without clothes the water in the cell was turned off and the mattress removed and prisoners bedding clothing legal mail and hygienic supplies were withheld