By James Bowden

Ladies and gentlemen, meet your next civil libertarian crusader (and fellow blogger-raconteur), John Tyner. Tyner, it seems, is a bit weary of new TSA screening measures which require airplane passengers to submit to either a full-body x-ray machine or a pat-down. For readers who are also Star Wars fans, this is akin to being forced to choose between exposing yourself to a decidedly obnoxious robot in R2-D2 or getting a pat-down from the decidedly creepy humanoid C-3PO; either way, the TSA comes off looking as if it should drive a van with no windows and sport a wispy mustache.

It also seems that Tyner might have help from the writers from The Daily Show. Gems like, "I don't think that the government has any business seeing me naked as a condition of traveling about the country," and "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested" would liven up the driest court transcript. Which might be a possibility, because the TSA’s San Diego federal security director says that refusing to complete the screening process might land Tyner a $11,000 civil penalty, and cites a 9^th Circuit Court decision in support.

Hrmmm. I’m just a humble corporate lawyer, so I don’t know much about “court decisions” and “Westlaw” and  “citation” and the like, but a little Googling uncovered a law review article by someone who apparently does, and the footnote on page 397 tipped me off to an interesting, more recent bit of 9th Circuit jurisprudence which refused to reach the issue of whether a passenger may refuse more intrusive searches in certain circumstances.  Methinks there may be a little less leeway as to what constitutes a permissible administrative search under the Fourth Amendment than the TSA is willing to admit (see? I read the articles I link to).

To be fair, my response to my first encounter with a full-body x-ray at the machine went a little differently than Tyner:

Me: “Cool, is that one of those full-body scanners?”

TSA Agent: “Yes.”

Me: “Hey, can you take my picture with it so I can see what it looks like?”

TSA Agent: “No.”

Me: “Come on. Why not?”

TSA Agent: “It doesn’t work.”

Me: [disappointed]

I am clearly not the average joe when it comes to this sort of thing. My attitude is that I’m more concerned with the government keeping track of my library books than I am with a government contractor getting a glimpse of the goods every here and there. But I digress.

The law review article that I linked to above suggests that the reasonableness of the search in the administrative setting changes with the public’s attitude towards the method of the search. [WARNING: CORPORATE ATTORNEY ATTEMPTING LAW REVIEW CITATION] Sara Kornblatt, Note, Are Emerging Technologies in Airport Passenger Screening Reasonable Under the Fourth Amendment? 41 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 395 (2007). I’m thinking the TSA might have read the note, because they are certainly mounting a little bit of a publicity campaign around the incident by linking to a recent CBS News poll from their home page. Since I clearly am out of the majority on this one, I’m curious what Young Lawyers Blog readers think. Take our [sort of, OK not really] scientific poll and let us know –

By Brian Malcom

While "attractive nuisance" would be a terrific band name for a bunch of law students who are wannabe rock stars, it is also what a Georgetown law professor is calling laptops in the classroom.  In case you missed it, Washington Post has the story here.

Apparently, the professor has shaky confidence in his ability to sustain the rapt attention of his audience while the Internet and solitaire are tempting their wandering eyes.

I can't imagine why.  I know my mind never wandered to espn.com when we were discussing the Rule Against Perpetuities in law school.  Why would I care about my March Madness bracketology when the Testator's heirs' interest in Blackacre is hanging by a measuring life?  Why?!

Another problem with laptops in the classrooms, according to the professor, is that they can be used to spread rumors.  I know I got all of the juciest gossip in law school during class and straight from the professor's mouth.  This piece of logic ignores the fact that PDAs are just as capable at spreading rumors as laptops and even more portable.

Despite this insult to the students' ability to manage their own attention spans, some students support the ban on laptops in the classroom.  Most say they are more engaged in classroom discussion and could concentrate easier.

What are your thoughts?

By Robert Chapski 

Even though I don't practice any kind of law remotely related this this story, every once in a while I come across something that makes me scratch my head thinking about the legal implications.  CNN reported yesterday on a story where a woman was mistakenly implanted with the "wrong embryos" (i.e., embryos from other genetic parents).  The mother has apparently elected to continue with the pregnancy and give the baby to the genetic parents without controversy.

By Robert Chapski

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently struck down as unconstitutional a state drug tax law that formerly required persons to pay an excise tax ("crack tax") on illegal substances (e.g., cocaine, marijuana, moonshine, etc.)  The substances were still illegal, of course, but the tax law worked outside the criminal justice system, and the excise tax stamps could be purchased anonymously.  Bonnaroo was purportedly a big target in the past for tax collectors.

Unfortunately, the state has already collected $10.4 million over the last few years from people with untaxed drugs in their possession.  A class action lawsuit has now been filed to recoup the funds paid by the drug possessors.  The argument is that if the law was unconstitutional, the tax should have never been collected.  The Tennessean, the local Nashville newspaper, notes that more than $271,000 of the funds have gone to police operations in Nashville.  It is anyone's guess what will happen with the money at this point.

I don't know what to make of this story.  Along with "saggy pants" and "guns n' bars", this has been a weird year for Tennessee law.

As of March 31, 2009, there have been over 9,946 people laid off by major law firms (4,046 lawyers / 5,905 staff) since January 1, 2008. For the first quarter of 2009, 7,999 (3,149 lawyers, 4,850 staff), 3,677 in March alone (1,334 attorneys, 2,343 staff). (http://lawshucks.com/layoff-tracker)