is reasonable under the circumstances). We recognize that strip searches are necessary for a plethora of reasons, and we understand that in order to preserve the safety of officers, of the public and of evidence, they must sometimes be employed. But we also take this opportunity, as did the United States Supreme Court, to issue a caveat: these interests “hardly justify disrobing an ar-restee on the street.” Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 645, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983). Indeed some courts have suppressed evidence where police officers, in an attempt to recover evidence, have exposed an arrestee’s most private anatomy to the public. However, most of those cases involved searches conducted outside of four walls. See Amaechi v. West, 237 F.3d 356, 361-62 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Hill v. Bogans, 735 F.2d 391, 394 (10th
holding unconstitutional blanket jail policy of subjecting all arrestees to strip and visual body cavity searches holding probable cause to be required for strip and visual body cavity searches holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant holding that mandatory visual strip search policy in county jail was unconstitutional holding a visual strip and visual cavity search unreasonable when done beside a police car