that i'm i'm a little puzzled about which part of the constitution your relying on probable cause and warrants are usually associated with the th amendment are you continue but a lot of your brief sounds like it's based on the th amendment or technically the due process clause of the th well i believe what we have you know what we jail here the distinction between this case and the cases that the sentence in a district court the law is that this is an intrusive physical cavity search as opposed to such an intrusive nature and it has been described in many cases again cited in the brief as just about the most intrusive search that a human being to be subjected to it's the human izing nature of actually having a physical product of the most intimate body cavity that in this case a woman possesses when you have that type of a an intrusive search case law does that and start out with the balancing test and even the defendant admit that the more intrusive serve the search the more you slide away from reasonable suppose suppose that i agree with you the probable cause and not reasonable suspicion is the proper substantive standard the question i have from there is why should the special needs exception apply us that the skin of the special needs exception should be employed so you have this type of holiday insurance and search taking the defendant i don't even have to say thinking true that there is an issue of jail security then anything it's hard to imagine this search this type of search only means reasonable suspicion it's hard to imagine what is categorical unequivocal and what do you say about the nurse i don't remember her name is a johnson or something the nurses discussion not with  inmates duke but with the other inmates now i understand that you might not think that that evidence should be credited you might not think it's sufficient but i don't know how you can argue that there is quote no such that anal cavity search was not required to the contrary there's actually no evidence in the record other than an assumption by chief deputy rebels that the contraband was solely alleged to be contained and play cavity testimony or should be the affidavit that was submitted from one of the informants and the testimony of donna johnson the nurse and of the reports that are contemporaneous indicate that the alleged contraband was hidden in a body cavity generally there's no reference to one body cavity over another there is no indication that the only body cavity that needed to n so in this case the only evidence that we have from the in the jewels who were taking information from the informants and who documented that contemporaneously with those documents that are in the record is that a a large amounts of methamphetamine was reportedly hidden in print if the body cavity so there's no evidence to indicate that one cavity over another should have been searched and another cavity going back now to the  by the plaintiffs to suggest that a pre trials of teenie body cavity search needs to go to a higher standard above and beyond reasonable suspicion as we pointed out in our brief each one of the cases that were cited by the plaintiffs to support a standard above and beyond reasonable suspicion also in late two cases involving a criminal defendant or evidence in a criminal case such that when you do that balancing test the difference governmental interests are way differently when you're weighing whether or not to intrude and conduct what is admittedly a very intrusive search weighing in favor the governmental interests in obtaining as it is for a conviction is different in that when the governmental interest in protecting an inmate or a pretrial detainees who is in custody of the governmental  thousand and twelve i understand florence has a different set of facts because it's one of these you know visual strip searches but that there was no touching involved it's the criminal trial so again the interest is there in removing the bullet was to obtain evidence ultimately obtain a conviction against the defendant so they would be compelling him to remove evidence from inside of him going into a individual such that the governmental agency had a duty to protect that individual so i think winston is distinguished in that you've got two different competing governmental interests at stake so we argue that winston isn't applicable because we're not dealing with the same governmental  all of the other cases cited by brown in her initial brief fall under that same line of went and they all deal with criminal cases where there is no governmental interest in safety or protection  plaintiff counsel suggests that this kind of opens the door and suggest at any time there's an arguable basis for faking your security concerns that a government agency or jail would be able to for pretrial detainees to go subject to a very intrusive search and i would i would suggest that i think that take that a little too far the reasonable suspicion standard still requires that there be a basis suddenly open up to requesting reasonable or requesting cavity searches based on nothing other than of concern for safety and security generally but even if that were to be the case you look at the case decisions in bal and warrant when you say these searches you're talking in very broad terms you mean visual inspections of pretrial detainees or the kind of search  miss brown underwent here there's a different was in the court did did only address the visual cavity searches but it's our position that although there haven't been any cited cases or any cases that i think i've been able to locate or counsel's been able to locate the deal with manual cavity searches of pretrial detainees i think the case law extends to a natural point that would that would permit manual cavity sun noted that bell versus wolfish actually held that pretrial detainees may be subjected to and he used the words digital and visual inspection in this case it was of the parties rectum for searching for contraband so judge posner implicitly acknowledged that bell should be extended above and beyond the visual inspection and i think by imposing the requirement for reasonable suspicion it doesn't just open the floodgates to permit everybody to undergo these searches without a basis it protects the rights of the detainees in so far as the th amendment requires a reasonable search  but it still allows the jails and the governmental agencies to to be able to fulfill their duty and their obligation as to protecting the inmates and other inmates involved might want to do that the time is almost up but if the court has any further questions