Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (quoting, inter alia, Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263, 1272 (7th Cir.1983), which recites a veritable litany of invective to describe strip searches). 57 . In this jurisdiction, see, e.g., Jefferson v. United States, 906 A.2d 885, 887 (D.C.2006); Washington v. United States, 594 A.2d 1050, 1051 (D.C.1991); United States v. Rodney, 294 U.S.App. D.C. 9, 10, 956 F.2d 295, 296 (1992). 58 . See Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 560, 99 S.Ct. 1861 ("The searches must be conducted in a reasonable manner.”). 59 . See, e.g., Swain, 117 F.3d at 7; Hartline v. Gallo, 546 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir.2008); State v. Nieves, 383 Md. 573, 861 A.2d 62, 76 (2004); People v. Hall, 10 N.Y.3d 303, 856 N.Y.S.2d 540, 886 N.E.2d 162, 166 (2008). But see Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1449 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 429 Mass. 403, 708 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that acquiescence to a strip and body cavity search did not extend the scope of defendants consent to search his person because of the highly intrusive nature of the search (B) holding probable cause to be required for strip and visual body cavity searches (C) holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant (D) holding a visual strip and visual cavity search unreasonable when done beside a police car (E) holding that prison officials may conduct visual body cavity searches in a reasonable manner
Output (English): holding that acquiescence to a strip and body cavity search did not extend the scope of defendants consent to search his person because of the highly intrusive nature of the search