justify strip searches in the absence of individualized reasonable suspicion. See Chapman v. Nichols, 989 F.2d 393, 396 (10th Cir.1993); Masters, 872 F.2d at 1254; Calvin, 405 F.Supp.2d at 943. It is telling that defendants’ own expert testified that he is not aware of any jail that conducts strip searches of all detainees charged only with misdemeanors without giving those detainees the option to remain outside of the jail’s general population. Moreover, courts have noted that a general policy to place detainees charged with minor offenses in the general jail population along with persons charged with more serious crimes does not justify a blanket strip search policy. See Roberts, 239 F.3d at 112-13; Chapman, 989 F.2d at 396; Masters, 872 F.2d at 1255; Calvin, 405 F.Supp.2d at 944-45 (<HOLDING>). The Court finds the reasoning of those cases
holding that such provisions are valid holding that so long as the plaintiff had no religious constraints against arranging his own schedule swap with other employees it would be a sufficient reasonable accommodation for the employer simply to be amenable to such a swap without requiring the employer itself actively to solicit other employees to make such a swap holding that 117 days in administrative segregation due to lack of bed space did not implicate a statecreated liberty interest recognizing that ex parte communications regarding strictly administrative matters are not sufficient to grant a motion to disqualify a judge holding that administrative concerns such as space constraints are not sufficient to justify blanket strip search policies