Burning Man and the federal government have a history of disagreeing over law enforcement tactics, and this year is already off to a rocky start even though the event is two months away.

After the release of a more than 300-page report from the Bureau of Land Management that details future expectations of the 80,000-person event, Burners already are protesting possible screenings for weapons and drugs.

BLM officials noted in the report that they plan to contract a private security firm to "screen vehicles and participants, vendors and contractors, and staff and volunteers entering the event." Officials have emphasized that the operation will be comprised of screenings, not searches.

The Burning Man organization in a follow-up statement said that the screenings were its "gravest concern" because the screenings subject "a peaceable gathering of people to searches without probable cause other than a desire to attend Burning Man."

We asked three legal experts to weigh in:

Stanford Criminal Justice Center Co-director David Sklansky

Retired U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner, now of Harvard Law School

And Professor Frank Cooper of the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

The interviews have been abbreviated for clarity and brevity.

BLM officials plan to 'screen' vehicles and attendees, not 'search' them. What is the difference between a screen and a search?

Sklansky: They may have a good argument, but that’s not one of them. Calling it a screening doesn’t make it any more legal. On the other hand, the fact that it’s a search doesn’t make it illegal. Ordinarily, searches are conducted with a warrant or individualized suspicion. When there’s some specialized need beyond regular law enforcement, then a search can be legal even without a warrant, even without individualized suspicion, but only if it’s part of a reasonable program.

Gertner: A screening could cover a number of activities, but if they pat down people when they come to Burning Man to see if they have drugs, then that’s a search. You can’t call it anything else. If they say to the person, 'Do you have drugs on you?' and they can say 'No,' then that’s arguably not illegal... If all they’re doing is asking a question, then I suppose the inquiry is not a search. If it’s just a conversation, it could pass muster. If it’s any touching or searching bags, that's a search.

Burning Man:Burning Man: Drug searches 'gravest' concern from BLM report, urges better trash disposal

What if it's a vehicle being searched?

Cooper: It’s a little different. On cars as a general matter, (law enforcement) can visually inspect from the outside. They can look in the windows, that’s fine. If they stop the car, then you enter Fourth Amendment territory. (Law enforcement officers) don’t have to avert their eyes. They can stand there and observe, and if they see someone with what looks like a meth pipe, then they probably have a case.

There's reasonable suspicion, that only allows to pat down on to find weapons. Then there's probable cause, that allows a full search. That's a higher level. There’s one other issue to flag: You can otherwise consent to what would be an unreasonable search. If I say 'Not a problem,' then it becomes OK.

Previous coverage:BLM denies Burning Man growth to 100,000 people, may implement drug screens in future

The word 'reasonable' is thrown around a lot — what does it mean in this context?

Sklansky: (chuckles) The courts end up deciding what is 'reasonable' on a case by case basis.

Previous coverage:Burning Man: Drug searches 'gravest' concern from BLM report, urges better trash disposal

Does it matter if the BLM hires a private security firm to conduct the screenings?

Gertner: No, you can’t delegate the Fourth Amendment. You can’t privatize the Fourth Amendment.

Cooper: Only a government agent can 'search,' but what they’re trying to do is get around the government agent part. That looks on its face like it won’t pass (in court) because a cop can’t say, 'Hey, we want to know what’s going on with that guy. Would you go search his bag?'

What would allow the BLM to legally conduct searches of participants at Burning Man?

Gertner: They can argue (national security), but it’s a stretch. That’s the rationale for border security, that’s the rationale for (screenings at) a government building, but it can’t be a contrivance. Protecting against illegal drug use on federal property is not national security. National security has become a cover for a lot, but it’s not a matter of national security if someone wants to get high.

We allow random searches on the borders because they tend to be reasonable. Last I looked, Burning Man is not near a border.

Sklansky: In order to justify the searches that it sounds like the BLM is contemplating, they’ll need to establish two things: One is that the program is reasonable and, two, that the program isn’t aimed at ordinary law enforcement, it’s aimed at a special need...

The Supreme Court has OK’d some school districts to conduct drug testing at schools. The Supreme Court was convinced that schools need to maintain order, worry about the safety of its students. It needs to make sure that students aren't using illegal drugs. There are a lot of cases where drug tests have been deemed OK. That’s one example where a search without a warrant has been OK'd. Courts have used this same reasoning to allow searches at airports because there's a need to ensure planes are safe from terrorists.

If the BLM says they're worried about people hurting themselves, they might be able to say that. But we’re not talking about a school, it’s more like people going into a park...It’s not clear at all that they can justify (searches) with a special need.

The BLM has noted previously that Burning Man could be a target for an act of terrorism, that firearms have been found at the event and people have died at the event. Could the 'national security' or 'public safety' argument be made given those details?

Gertner: They could try to say what they’re really looking for is weapons, and then they would have all the Second Amendment people at their throats.

Sklansky: It might be. But the thing is, this case is sufficiently different than other cases so it’s hard to know for sure how a court would rule.

Jenny Kane covers arts and culture in Northern Nevada, as well as the dynamic relationship between the state and the growing Burning Man community. She also covers the state's burgeoning cannabis industry (Check out her podcast, the Potcast, on iTunes.) Support her work in Reno by subscribing to RGJ.com right here.