Oenophiles rejoice!

One of the great perks of being situated in south-central Indiana is that I happen to be in wine country (as much as one can have in this particular climate). There are several wineries in the Bloomington area, and I have to believe that their presence brings Indiana Law a wealth of connoisseur law professors.

Ironically, Indiana is a harsh place to be an oenophile. The state is in the pockets of the large alcohol distributors, providing that we can't import wine from out of state, and, until recently, couldn't even have wine from Indiana wineries shipped to our homes (today, the restrictions on wine shipping are still extremely harsh). As a result of this environment, several lawsuits have been brought in an attempt to loosen the grip of these distributors. Fortunately, the biggest wine lovers I know are all law professors.

One such professor, Patrick Baude, was recently involved in a suit, and today the court ruled in his favor. I'd love to summarize the decision, but aside from its length*, I'd hate to screw up briefing a professor's case. If and when I have Professor Baude again, I'd hate for that to be hanging over my head.

"This litigation challenges the constitutionality of Indiana laws that allegedly restrict the ability of wineries, and out-of-state wineries in particular, to sell their product directly to Indiana residents, primarily by orders placed by telephone or over the Internet."

Preventing out-of-state wineries from shipping to Indiana residents violates the Commerce Clause. The defendants, the Indiana ATC and one of the wholesalers, say that the restrictions are there "for the children". Poppycock, says the court (not in those words, of course).

The gist of the decision:
"[T]he court finds the wholesale prohibition, Ind. Code § 7.1-3-26-7(a)(6), to be unconstitutional insofar as it bars wineries that possess wholesale privileges in states other than Indiana from seeking a Direct Wine Seller’s permit. The court also finds the requirement of an initial face-to-face transaction between a winery and customer prior to direct shipment, as described in Ind. Code §§ 7.1-3-26-6(4), 7.1-3-26-9(1)(A), to be unconstitutional. These two conditions constitute a form of economic protectionism and violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

"The court does not find Indiana’s general prohibition of direct shipping, Ind. Code Ind. Code § 7.1-5-11-1.5, to be unconstitutional except with respect to the two specific conditions in the statutory provisions cited above. Nor does the court find the statute allowing an Indiana farm winery to sell its product onsite and at certain other locations, Ind. Code § 7.1-3-12-5, to be unconstitutional."

Not a complete knock-out win, but definitely a step in the right direction. So on this night, I propose a toast to Professor Baude and his success in this litigation. Congratulations!

*Please note, Professor, that I did actually read the whole case. I just didn't think my readers wanted the details.

[Day] One: They Scare [Me] to Death

It's only day one and I already have a rule of contract law named after me. This can't be a good sign of things to come.

The day actually wasn't bad at all. I started off my day with Contracts, a course, I feared, that had great potential to cure my insomnia. First day of class wasn't bad, but I found myself in the line of fire. I was just sitting there minding my own business when, suddenly I heard the words no one wants to hear on the first day. "Mr. Blair..."

We were discussing expectancy damages, and we had the hypothetical that a buyer chose between two identical cars. One cost $37K. The other cost $34K. The buyer agreed to buy the more expensive car, but when the seller refused to turn over the car, the buyer sued. For what could the buyer sue? I said $34K, because, to me, the substitute performance penalty, worked in reverse, should make the person as well off as if the contract had been completed; in other words, $3K in the hole. For the remainder of the class period, this concept of giving the seller something for nothing was termed "The Blair Rules of Contract Enforcement." I'm not deep enough into the class to know if it is real or not, but someone said it sounds a lot like the Restatement of Contracts. I can only hope.

I also had Torts, Civil Procedure, and Legal Profession (Ethics), but wasn't cold called in any of them. I can honestly say that Torts today was the first time I ever felt like I really didn't want my name called. That class, so far, has been a mental workout like no other. I have a feeling that it will require all my effort not to let it kill me. The other two are more my style: remember and apply written rules. That I can enjoy. Common law, on the other hand... blah.

Only 991 days until graduation...

A Late-Night Post

Well, I survived orientation, which, from what I had heard beforehand, seems to be just short of a miracle. I'll post more thoughts on orientation at a time when I shouldn't be in bed. Tomorrow I begin my classes, and find out if I'm any good at this 1L thing.

Unlike my summer start course, where anyone anywhere could have found out who my professor was, I have decided to keep my regular semester professors unnamed for the purposes of this blog. While I'm sure that anyone from Indiana Law will figure out my professors from descriptions of course work I discuss (and if they were to ask me in person, I'd tell them), I think it would be most respectful to these men and women to keep their names out of my blogs. This practice will hopefully keep me from feeling the Socratic fire more than my classmates. I doubt that it will alter the quality of the posts on this blog (I'll let you decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing).

I have the full array of courses tomorrow (less LRW, of course), so I should know by tomorrow afternoon whether or not I made a substantial (or procedural) mistake in going to law school. Until then, adieu.

Playing Catch-up

I'm finally back in town, after a much needed break from the hectic life of a law student. Tomorrow starts the next leg of the race, and I feel (moderately) prepared for it.

The final in Criminal Law was certainly... unexpected. I don't want to give away details about the questions or my answers, but the exam certainly shifted us out of the realms where we had practiced up to that point. I've been trying to avoid doing a post-op on the exam, and I think getting out of town helped with that a bit. I hope I did well, since my Crim Law grade matters more to my desired profession than, say, Contracts or Property, but we'll see in a couple weeks when grades are posted.

While I was away, good things happened in the Ron Paul campaign. #5 (9%) in the Iowa straw poll and #3 (18%) in Illinois makes for a dramatic shift from the 1% he had been polling with up to that point. And he spent markedly less than most of the "big name" candidates. I still don't think it's likely that the management of the Republican Party would nominate him, but he's certainly making a buzz in the electorate. We'll just have to sit back and wait.

I'll have more to post after tomorrow, when I get my fall schedule, and I see where the other persons of my study group end up. Whatever happens, I feel pretty confident that I'm ready. Summer start was the right choice for me, and I certainly feel like I got my money's worth. For all pre-Ls reading this, I recommend such a program highly, if for no other reason than the social aspects. And doing it at IU is the icing on the cake.

Always Say "No"

One of the first things I did when I started studying law in depth was to fill my younger brothers in on their rights as American citizens. Like all good lads, they drive cars and may occasionally speed. Such speeding might just bring about an officer of the law, who might just ask them questions not relating to their driving at all. And what did I tell my brothers?

"Always tell them no. Ask for a warrant, and don't let them touch the inside of the car, or any part of your person, without seeing one."

It may not make you popular with the police, and it may cause even more of a delay in your busy schedule, but that's the high price of having rights. I don't suspect that either of my brothers would be in possession of anything illegal. Then again, if they were, I would hope that both would be smart enough to demand a warrant. Letting them know that police sometimes act "unscrupulously" was my job as their older brother.

Thanks to a commenter on my last post, I was alerted to yet another wrongdoing in my great state. There's just something about law enforcement in Indianapolis and their thinking that they can throw the net wide.

As DailyKos describes, federal agents working for the TSA, including Air Marshals, took up base at two bus stops in downtown Indianapolis and set up random checkpoints to pat people down, look in bags, and perform "behavior" tests for the stated purpose of finding weapons and people who were a threat to public safety.

Never mind the fact that there have been no federal crimes occurring on Indy buses. Never mind that Indiana allows anyone with a concealed carry permit (from any state) to carry a handgun legally. Never mind that citizens weren't informed that they could opt out (so that the searches weren't in violation of the Fourth Amendment).

DailyKos has some alarming first-hand accounts of the searches, as well as a far more detailed account than what I can give. Sadly, the Indy Star managed to keep the story to a few lines near the middle. At least this time the comments seem to agree with the general legal consensus.

So, little brothers, I add on to my previous statement. You should also say no to any federal officer demanding to search you anywhere that's not an airport or the White House. In fact, you might want to just steer clear of Indianapolis until the ACLU takes care of this.

It's Not a "Technicality"

A couple weeks ago I wrote a post concerning the Indiana seat belt laws, and why I disagreed with them. The discussion in the comments was insightful, and I appreciated the feedback.

One of my arguments against such seat belt laws was that they often give police a way of stopping a car that they would like to search, possibly on stereotypical reasons, such as a black driver in a white town. Yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals handed down a judgement to that fact. A man was pulled over for a seat belt violation, and in the course of the traffic stop, the officer told the man to get out of the car and be subjected to a pat-down. The man was carrying marijuana on his person, and methamphetamine in his vehicle. He was promptly arrested.

The Court of Appeals was kind enough to say that such a search and seizure is unconstitutional, and that the evidence could not be admitted. They also have a very nice summary of other traffic incidents in the decision.

While reading about the story in the Indianapolis Star, I decided to read the comments left by other readers. I'm sad to say that far too many were upset with the Court's ruling. My favorite comment, summarizing the views of the opposing (and very wrong) side was this:

"What a sad civilization we live in. Blatant criminal activity goes unpunished and we avoid helping this person recover from drug addiction. This is all simply because of a technicality. Wow America, way to help better our youth and clean up or country. Our legal system is severely screwed up."

My jaw just about fell off. The Fourth Amendment is not a "technicality". It's not a sign of a "screwed up" legal system. It's what keeps the government in check from becoming King George III, the Schutzstaffel, or Big Brother.

It's sad that so many people don't have an understanding of the basic purposes of the Constitution.