to search effectively. Id. at 551, 99 S.Ct. 1861. [¶ 11] Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell, several federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of “publisher-only” rules similar to the rules at issue here. See Cotton v. Lockhart, 620 F.2d 670, 672 (8th Cir.1980) (upholding constitutionality of “publisher-only” rule applying to magazines, newspapers, and books under reasoning of Supreme Court in Bell because rule is a reasonable and constitutional response to a legitimate and substantial concern for institutional security); Ward v. Washtenaw Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., 881 F.2d 325, 330 (6th Cir.1989) (extending the Bell decision to include magazines because the rule was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests); Kines v. Day, 754 F.2d 28, 31 (1st Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Avery v. Powell, 806 F.Supp. 7, 11
holding that a us department of labor drug testing plan did not on its face violate the fourth amendment but emphasizing that the ruling did not preclude an as applied constitutional challenge holding that two or three references to everyone and they in testimony about confession did not violate bruton because testimony did not implicate the defendant expressly nor was it incriminating on its face holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution holding employers admitted policy discriminatory on its face holding a publisheronly rule applying to hardcover softcover and newspaper publications did not violate the constitution on its face