1165, 1171 (7th Cir.1987). Moreover, the fact-intensive inquiry into the inadequate heating, the severity of the resulting cold, and the duration of the inmate’s exposure to it generally requires the development of a factual record. See Dixon, 114 F.3d at 643. Likewise, the allegations of overcrowding, lack of recreation, and poor air circulation also contribute to a valid conditions-of-confinement claim. See Smith v. Fairman, 690 F.2d 122, 125 (7th Cir.1982) (evaluating claim of unconstitutional overcrowding under “totality of the conditions of confinement” approach); Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.2001) (observing that exercise is “a necessary requirement for physical and mental well-being”); Shelby Cnty. Jail Inmates v. Westlake, 798 F.2d 1085, 1087 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). In combination, therefore, the conditions
recognizing criminal forfeiture as an aspect of punishment holding that suspension of driving privileges is not punishment and does not violate an individuals right not to be subject to double jeopardy or constitute a disproportionate penalty holding that if double jeopardy clause is not violated because legislature intended double punishment section 7019 is not applicable and merger is not required holding prison officials ultimately violated the plaintiffs right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment recognizing a right to adequate ventilation that is violated if the ventilation is so poor as to constitute punishment