discussed infra, we reject Jackson’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the strip search, and a losing Fourth Amendment claim cannot be a winner under the Eighth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable conduct, whether amounting to punishment or not, while the Eighth Amendment prohibits only cruel and unusual conduct that rises to the level of punishment, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-38, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). 7 . With respect to the Fourth Amendment claim, the district court did not address § 1997e(e) in making its determination, and defendants do not invoke that provision in their argument on appeal. 8 . The district court also found persuasive our unpublished decision of Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978 at *3 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 1988) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The district court also considered Ling
holding strip searches conducted in the station house without reasonable suspicion that minor offenders had possession of contraband are unreasonable and violate the fourth amendment holding that policy requiring strip searches of prisoners prior to transfer did not violate fourth amendment holding that routine monitoring and recording of the calls of convicted prisoners does not violate the prisoners fourth amendment rights holding that a state administrative prison code requiring thorough searches did not mandate the sheriffs decision to implement a strip search policy and therefore the county not the state was liable holding that inmates fourth amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives hudson