Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment). But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th
holding that inmates fourth amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives hudson holding that hudson overruled bells assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners fourth amendment rights holding that incarcerated prisoners have fourth amendmentprotected privacy interests after hudson and despite hudsons broad language holding that even after hudson the prisoners privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under bell holding that routine monitoring and recording of the calls of convicted prisoners does not violate the prisoners fourth amendment rights