It is the basic rule that the control and management of federal penal institutions lies within the sound discretion of the responsible administrative agency, and judicial review will be granted only upon a showing that prison officials exercised their discretionary powers in such a manner as to constitute clear abuse or caprice.

We note that several lower courts have upheld such visual body-cavity inspections against constitutional challenge.

Wolfish, op. cit. supra n. 142, indicates that a body cavity search is "reasonable" even if no "probable cause" exists.

It is well established that the need to maintain prison discipline provides the basis for dispensing with the warrant and probable cause requirement when conducting a search within the confines of a penal institution.

—rectal search prior to court appearance did not violate fourth amendment. It was necessary to protect law enforcement officers

As we reiterated recently: The Supreme Court has made it clear that "lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system."

—held that strip searches are permissible under certain conditions88 but that supervision of dressing, showering, and toilet functions (and presumably strip searches) must be done by same-sex COS. 89 88 See

"Security demands" are frequently offered as justification for administrative behavior in both the jail and prison contexts.

The court cited several cases for the proposition that prisoners have a limited privacy interest entitling them to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and unjustifiable confiscations.

[PDF] A Review of Prisoners' Rights Litigation under 42 U. SC. § 1983

[PDF] COURTS-MARTIALL UNITED STATESS

[PDF] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

[PDF] Memorandum and Order

[PDF] Manual for Courts-Martial United States. 2002 Edition

[CITATION] Military rules of evidence manual