fourth amendment is concerned, whether or not the officer has probable cause to believe that the inmate committed any other crime .... [tlhe idea that the police could violate a prisoner's [F Jourth amendment rights by asking questions in search of information about other offenses has no basis in the language of that amendment or the Supreme Court's cases."); Johnson v. City of Cincinnati, 310 F.3d 484, 491 (6th Cir.2002) (remarking that "[the Fourth Amendment does not apply post-conviction" and that, whatever the duration of the Amendment's protections, the relevant analytical period exists "along the pretrial continuum" after which eventually "the Fourth Amendment's protection gives way to the protection of another Amendment"); Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159, 1163-64 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), abrogated by Wilkins v. Gaddy, -- U.S. --,
holding that analysis of seizures under the fourth amendment applies only to an initial seizure and subsequent conditions of detention are properly examined under the fourteenth amendment holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action holding that the fourth amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures was applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment so that evidence seized in violation of the constitution could no longer be used in state courts holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment