3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393. The Court reasoned that “imprisonment carries with it the circumscription or loss of many significant rights. These constraints on inmates, and in some cases the complete withdrawal of certain rights, are ‘justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.’ ” Id. at 524, 104 S.Ct. 3194 (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979)) (quoting Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948), overruled on other grounds by McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991)). The Court stated: “[S]ociety is not prepared to recognize as legitima dment analysis applies to pretrial detainees as well as convicted prisoners. See State v. Bolin, 693 So.2d 583 (Fla.Ct.App.2d Dist.1997) (<HOLDING>); People v. Phillips, 219 Mich.App. 159, 555
holding that warrantless searches of cell phones incident to arrest should not be allowed because such searches cannot be justified by officer safety or the preservation of evidence given the privacy implications inherent in cell phone data searches holding that pretrial detainees have at least the same protections under the fourteenth amendment as posttrial detainees have under the eighth amendment holding contrary to the second districts reasoning in mccoy 639 so2d 163 that pretrial detainees lack any expectation of privacy so the fourth amendment does not protect them from cell searches holding the defendant lacked any expectation of privacy in his cell so the jailer had the right to inspect anything in his cell holding that prisoners have no legitimate expectation of privacy and that the fourth amendments prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison cells