correctional officials must be given “substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to the problems they face,” id., and that “courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to the problems of jail security,” id. at 1513-14. Here, as in Florence, SCCF’s policy of strip searching inmates leaving the prison to appear in court was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. As the District Court found, the searches prevented inmates from smuggling weapons or contraband' out of prison that could harm prison security guards, transporting offi cers, court personnel, or even members of the public. See Goff v. Nix, 803 F.2d 358, 368 (8th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Further evidence of SC.CF’s penological
holding that a prisons policy of strip searching inmates who are leaving did not violate their fourth amendment rights and noting in particular that the public nature of courts and the frequently crowded surroundings make the presence of a weapon that the inmate has managed to smuggle with him  particularly dangerous holding that inmates fourth amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives hudson recognizing that the application of fourth amendment rights are personal in nature and are invariably intertwined with the concept of standing holding strip searches conducted in the station house without reasonable suspicion that minor offenders had possession of contraband are unreasonable and violate the fourth amendment holding that policy requiring strip searches of prisoners prior to transfer did not violate fourth amendment