With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1253, 1255 (6th Cir.1989) (skin search in the presence of other people); Hill v. Bogans, 735 F.2d 391, 393, 394-95 (10th Cir.1984) (same); Giles v. Ackerman, 746 F.2d 614, 615, 617-18 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam), overruled on other grounds by Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir.1999) (skin search). Also, at least two cases suggest that the named plaintiffs’ charges, DUI and domestic dispute charges, do not give rise to reasonable suspicion for the purposes of conducting a custodial strip search on an arrestee. Logan v. Shealy, 660 F.2d 1007, 1013 (4th Cir.1981) (“[DUI], though not a minor traffic offense, [is] nevertheless [an offense] not commonly associated by its very nature with the possession of weapons or contraband.”); Shain v. Ellison, 273 F.3d 56 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). More importantly, however, all courts

A: holding strip search constitutional where police arrested the plaintiff for felonious assault
B: holding that plaintiff had not stated an equal protection claim where plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant treated him differently from anyone else who both had problems with alcohol and had been arrested
C: holding unconstitutional city policy of subjecting all females arrested and detained to strip and visual body cavity searches
D: holding that the custodial strip search of plaintiff who had been arrested for first degree harassment arising from a domestic dispute was unconstitutional
D.