because of the risk that persons arrested on drug charges will bring drugs with them. Perhaps with respect to other types of drug offenses — about which we express no opinion — but the record shows us nothing about this jail (or any other jail’s) experience with those arrested on § 11550(a) charges. We do not disagree that in some cases, the charge itself may give rise to reasonable suspicion; indeed, we so held in Thompson, where the felony charged was grand theft auto and the offense was “sufficiently associated with violence to justify a visual strip search.” 885 F.2d at 1447. We have also been careful to distinguish charges that involve drugs and contraband as well as violence when invalidating blanket strip search policies applied in other contexts. See Kennedy, 901 F.2d at 716 (<HOLDING>); Giles, 746 F.2d at 618 (declaring
holding that no seizure occurred where officers boarded bus and began questioning passengers gave passengers no reason to believe that they required an answer and tjhere was no application of force no intimidating movement no overwhelming show of force no brandishing of weapons no blocking of exits no threat no command not even an authoritative tone of voice holding that appellants had no standing to challenge search of car because they had no ownership or possessory rights of any kind in the car holding unconstitutional a strip search policy applied to person arrested for stealing a roommates belongings observing that no weapons no drugs no contraband no violent acts of any kind were involved holding strip search constitutional where police arrested the plaintiff for felonious assault holding that mandatory visual strip search policy in county jail was unconstitutional