A Colorado attorney has asked a federal judge to order the Transportation Security Administration to abandon its airport screening procedures for United States citizens.

Gary Fielder filed his lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver last week, more than a month after he, his two daughters, ages 9 and 15, and a family friend underwent a TSA pat-down in San Diego.

Fielder's lawsuit claimed the pat-downs were "disgusting, unconscionable, sexual in nature" and in violation of the Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches.

He said subjecting U.S. citizens to the new procedures is wrong because no American has been accused of threatening commercial airliners with explosives.

Nationally, at least two other lawsuits have been filed over the TSA's new procedures.

"I'm not asking for any money. I just want to walk to a plane without being touched," Fielder said Tuesday. "They're probably thinking that next time, I'll just submit to the scanner. No, I won't go through that. I'm not going to be photographed nude."

TSA officials last month began phasing in full-body scanners at airports, ahead of the busy holiday travel season. Those who opt out of the scanners, which some travelers oppose over concerns of radiation and graphic images, undergo new pat-down procedures that include more of a hand-sliding motion.

In a statement, TSA officials declined to comment on Fielder's lawsuit, citing pending litigation. The lawsuit named Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplitano, TSA administrator John Pistole, and the TSA.

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Tiffany's in its ongoing suit against eBay, effectively closing the case in favor of the online auction house.

The original suit, filed in 2004 and heard in 2007, claimed that eBay was not doing enough to police its auctions for counterfeit goods.

Tiffany claimed that it purchased its own goods in random eBay auctions, and that 73 percent of the purchases were of counterfeit goods. eBay, meanwhile, had claimed that its Verified Rights Owners program satisfied the company's obligation to sell legitimate merchandise.

In 2008, eBay won the initial ruling, but Tiffany's appealed the case to an appellate court. After the court upheld the eBay decision again, Tiffany's only other recourse was an appeal to the Supreme Court.

"It is true that eBay did not itself sell counterfeit Tiffany goods; only the fraudulent vendors did, and that is in part why we conclude that eBay did not infringe Tiffany's mark," the appeals court opinion said. "But eBay did affirmatively advertise the goods sold through its site as Tiffany merchandise."

The Supreme Court denied the petition on Monday, appending a note that Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of the petition.

A former street preacher on trial for kidnapping and assaulting Elizabeth Smart suffered an apparent seizure in the courtroom Tuesday and was rushed to a hospital.

The judge adjourned the case for the day after defendant Brian David Mitchell was removed on a stretcher and put in an ambulance.

Paramedics took Mitchell to a hospital, but neither court officials nor defense attorneys would identify it. His condition could not immediately be determined.

However, court officials said later in the day the trial would resume Wednesday.

The incident occurred as the jury was about to be called into the courtroom for another day of testimony.

Mitchell was sitting between two of his defense attorneys when he stopped his daily hymn singing and slumped over slightly in his chair. He cried out — a long, loud moan — as his body twisted to the left.

The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from a Texas teenager who got in trouble for illegal downloading of music—a potential blow to students who might claim to be “innocent infringers” of copyright laws after downloading music without paying and bogging down campus networks.

Whitney Harper of Texas acknowledged she used file-sharing programs to download and share three dozen songs, claiming she didn’t know the program she used was taking songs from the internet illegally.

She also said the money she owes the recording industry should be reduced because, as a 16-year-old, she didn’t know that what she did amounted to copyright infringement.

The state Supreme Court ruled on Friday that possession of more than 8 pounds of marijuana is a serious enough charge to warrant forcing medication on a defendant so he is competent to stand trial.

The high court's 7-0 ruling came in the case of 30-year-old Christopher Seekins of Torrington, who authorities say has been ruled incompetent to stand trial because he refuses to take psychotropic medication for bipolar disorder. Justices upheld a lower court judge's order to medicate Seekins against his will.

State law says a defendant can be involuntarily medicated if the crime is serious enough and there is an overriding law enforcement interest in determining whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. Seekins argued that possessing marijuana isn't a serious crime.

Seekins' lawyer, Richard Marquette, declined to comment on the ruling Friday through an employee at his Hamden law firm.

Seekins also made headlines in 2005 when he painted large pictures of marijuana leaves on his Winsted home with the word "hemp" beneath them after being charged with growing marijuana, saying it was in support of legalizing the drug. He later agreed in a plea bargain to remove or cover up the paintings, which caused a ruckus in town because they were visible from busy Main Street.

Justice Richard Palmer, a former prosecutor, wrote in the Supreme Court's ruling that the basis for determining whether a crime is serious is the severity of the sentence it potentially carries. Palmer noted that Seekins faces a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years in prison if convicted of just three of the many charges he faces.

Several Union City residents have filed a class action lawsuit against United Water on allegations that the company cheated customers by selling them useless warranties that do not cover repairs.

The warranties, which cost about $150 a year, are supposed to cover the repair of broken water pipes, sewer pipes and other items, the attorneys for three 18th Street plaintiffs, said. Although the application says "Guaranteed Acceptance" in large print, there are actually many exclusions, the attorneys said.

Multi-unit dwellings are actually excluded from the warranty, but that has not stopped United Water from marketing and selling the policies to the owners of multi-unit buildings, the lawsuit says.

The suit was recently filed in Bergen County Superior Court in Hackensack, where United Water is based.

Attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran held a press conference Tuesday at the courthouse. Afran estimated that if all New Jersey residents in a situation similar to the plaintiffs were to join the suit, and the suit was successful, it could cost United Water as much as $50 million.