they must get a warrant. Id. This is so, the court said, because Burger “did not endorse a scheme that would allow a warrantless search based on recently discovered evidence that criminal activity had occurred.” Id. (quoting S & S Pawn Shop Inc. v. City of Del City, 947 F.2d 432, 440 (10th Cir.1991)).. Furthermore, the court said, “inspections of ... business premises ... conducted not as part of a pre-planned and dispassionate administrative procedure but instead pursuant to direct criminal suspicion ... give [ ] cause for grave constitutional concern.” Id. (quoting S & S Pawn Shop, 947 F.2d at 441). The Eighth Circuit has also recognized the danger of allowing administrative searches to become “pretexts for ‘crime control.’ ” United States v. Knight, 306 F.3d 534, 537 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). We share our sister circuits’ concern that
holding unconstitutional the administrative search of personal belongings conducted in that case holding that correction officers misdirection of inmates personal belongings may constitute a claim of retaliation for exercise of first amendment rights holding search unreasonable when conducted on the highway in broad day light holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act holding that contraband would have been inevitably discovered where agents conducted a warrantless search while obtaining a search warrant and later conducted a second legal search in which agents discovered contraband