Via FourthAmendment.Com:

Strip frisk policy of inmates was related to a penological purpose and was valid: Davidson v Kyle (2004, WD NY) 2004 US Dist Lexis 8013. Defendant answering door in response to police knock was in public place for arrest on warrant under Santana; he was not under compulsion by answering door: State v Shellenbarger (2004, Ida App) 2004 Ida App Lexis 37.

Comment: One cannot help but wonder what the current allegations of U.S. violations of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq are having, consciously or subconsciously, on the deliberations of the U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v Bush, the Guantanamo detainees case, considering that the government argues that the detainees at Guantanamo are not subject either to the Geneva Conventions or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, treaties championed by the U.S. when they were adopted. If the Baghdad press conference at 9 am ET CNN today is an indication, we consider the allegations there a violation of the Geneva convention. In addition, a Canadian citizen living in Los Angeles has sued in the U.S. Claims Court claiming he was tortured in Iraq at the beginning of the war, and he saw worse than he received. What happened happened, and we'll know more soon, if the alleged rape and homicide photographs are released. But, the fact that it might happen in the future was the reason the U.S. military gave in early 2001 for not wanting the U.S. to ratify the International Criminal Court treaty because we did not want our soldiers tried as potential war criminals. Makes one wonder what they were planning for Iraq.