privacy that has been invaded by government action.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court must, therefore answer two questions: (1) “whether the individual, by his conduct, has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy”; (2) “whether the individual’s subjective expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). [¶ 17] The United States Supreme Court has held that random searches of prisoners’ cells do not violate the Fourth Amendment because prisoners have no expectation of privacy in their cells and prison officials must be allowed to ensure the safety of the institution. Hudson, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.C 2d 742 (1996) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 20] We conclude that O’Rourke lacked a
holding that pretrial detainees possess a constitutional right against deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs because the due process rights of a pretrial detainee are at least as great as the eighth amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner holding notice received by pretrial detainee of recording of calls disposed of his fourth amendment claims related to recordings as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances holding that the due process clause protects a pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy holding that a pretrial detainee also lacks fourth amendment privacy protection because the institutional objectives remain the same