context: Turner cited Bell with approval and did not at any point suggest that Bell's approach to Fourth Amendment claims should no longer be controlling law. This Court will not disregard controlling Supreme Court precedent that has not been specifically overruled by subsequent Supreme Court cases.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 543 U.S. 499, 509-10
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that Turner did not "cast doubt on" the Court's previous holding that strict scrutiny applies to racial classifications in prisons
citation_a.sentence: See Powell, 541 F.3d at 1302 (declining to apply the Turner test to custodial strip searches on this ground); cf. Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 509-10, 125 S.Ct. 1141, 160 L.Ed.2d 949 (2005) (holding that Turner did not “cast doubt on” the Court’s previous holding that strict scrutiny applies to racial classifications in prisons). Like the many courts that have addressed the constitutionality of custodial strip searches, this Court is guided by Bell and its progeny-
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 541 F.3d 1302, 1302
citation_b.parenthetical: declining to apply the Turner test to custodial strip searches on this ground
citation_b.sentence: See Powell, 541 F.3d at 1302 (declining to apply the Turner test to custodial strip searches on this ground); cf. Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 509-10, 125 S.Ct. 1141, 160 L.Ed.2d 949 (2005) (holding that Turner did not “cast doubt on” the Court’s previous holding that strict scrutiny applies to racial classifications in prisons). Like the many courts that have addressed the constitutionality of custodial strip searches, this Court is guided by Bell and its progeny-