Judge blocks Fla.'s new welfare drug testing law

A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida's new law that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving the benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Mary Scriven's ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who sought the benefits while finishing his college degree, but refused to take the test.

The judge said there was a good chance plaintiff Luis Lebron would succeed in his challenge to the law based on the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. The drug test can reveal a host of private medical facts about the individual, Scriven wrote, adding that she found it "troubling" that the drug tests are not kept confidential like medical records. The results can also be shared with law enforcement officers and a drug abuse hotline.

"This potential interception of positive drug tests by law enforcement implicates a `far more substantial' invasion of privacy than in ordinary civil drug testing cases," Scriven said.

The law's proponents include Gov. Rick Scott, who said during his campaign the measure would save $77 million. It's unclear how he arrived at those figures.

"Drug testing welfare recipients is just a common-sense way to ensure that welfare dollars are used to help children and get parents back to work," said Jackie Schutz, a spokeswoman for Scott. "The governor obviously disagrees with the decision and he will evaluate his options regarding when to appeal."

Earlier this year, Scott also ordered drug testing of new state workers and spot checks of existing state employees under him. But testing was suspended after the American Civil Liberties Union also challenged that policy in a separate lawsuit.

Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid-July, but they aren't required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana.

Supporters say applicants skipped the test because they knew they would have tested positive for drugs. Applicants must pay $25 to $35 for the test and are reimbursed by the state if they pass. It's unclear if the state has saved money.

Under the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families program, the state gives $180 a month for one person or $364 for a family of four.

Those who test positive for drugs are ineligible for the cash assistance for one year, though passing a drug course can cut that period in half. If they fail a second time, they are ineligible for three years.

Lebron, who is the sole caretaker of his 4-year-old son, said he's "happy that the judge stood up for me and my rights and said the state can't act without a reason or suspicion."

The ACLU says Florida was the first to enact such a law since Michigan tried more than a decade ago. Michigan's random drug testing program for welfare recipients lasted five weeks in 1999 before it was halted by a judge, kicking off a four-year legal battle that ended with an appeals court ruling it unconstitutional.

[ms_feralcat]

I don't think it's the initial testing itself that is deemed unconstitutional. I think it's the fact that the results aren't kept private. They should only be used for the sole purpose of determing whether someone can be on welfare or not. Not sent out to police departments and such. Don't get me wrong, I am all for drug testing. That's my hard earned money going to crack heads and meth users. We worked hard for it. We drug tested for it. You should have to earn it just like we did.

There's nothing unconstitutional about the test itself. If you don't want to take it you don't have to. Just like if you apply for a job and they ask for a drug test you can refuse. Don't expect to get the job tho. Just like with this instance, don't want to test... don't expect to get MY hard earned money for free.

I don't care what anybody says, someone who doesn't have anything to hide will take the test, unconstitutional or not. They are being selfish by not testing because their children are suffering. It's sickening how many "parents" only think of themselves and don't think of how their actions affect their children.

[sunglasses2000]

yeah! we'll really show those kids by making them go hungry since their parents are irresponsible. that'll teach em!

[phwtb]

This is NOT good...

IF this is ruled 'unconstitutional', what stops the courts from telling employers they can no longer drug test their employees?

And secondly, what do I have to come up with to file a law suit that says the government use of MY tax dollars to pay welfare benefits to all those dope heads violates MY constitutional rights?

Like all those Wall Street Occupiers, some things just have to go bad before they can be made good.

The cold hard fact of the matter is, welfare MUST BE MADE more difficult to receive AND stricter to keep if we are ever to get all those 'generational' bums to get out of their Cadillac's and go get a job!

1. Drug test all of them, and include alcohol and tobacco in the test as well. If they have something to hide, let them hide it by EARNING the money to pay for their 'sins' themselves! I use the word 'sin' here only because all those items are sin taxed by a government who refuses to let God into their domain. What a sad, pathetic decision that was! Besides, I pay enough for my cigarettes. I no longer care to be made to afford theirs.

2. STOP paying them to reproduce! REDUCE their checks every time they have another kid while feeding off the system. It is only with a reduction of benefits they will realize very quickly the only way to get more money is knowing who the fathers are!

Sorry, Jerry Springer and Maury Povich, but you guys need to find a new avenue for your fans entertainment anyway.

[Ceres6]

It is an irony that Florida governor Rick Scott, the one who made millions of dollars in shady deals not too long ago, it is precisely the one pushing that unconstitutional measure against needy people. Anything that has to do with bullying the weak, Mr. Scott is always the first one in line. A few months ago he was making derogatory comments and decreasing the benefits of Florida teachers. According to him the teachers are responsible for the economic problems our country is suffering.

[really21]

So then you don't have a problem with people who actually go out to work and pay taxes so these so called "weak" can get free welfare, housing, food, healthcare, etal, being drug tested to earn that pay check. And apparently you don't mind that the money they receive that is supposed to be used for food, clothing, and living expenses to support the so called "weak" is used for drugs? And why are they weak? Did they not have the same opportunity for an education in free public schools? did they not have enough food (you know through welfare, food stamps, wic, and other programs)? Or was it that they chose to not learn in school and had no support from their parent who is on drugs? funny way to help the "weak" or is the point to keep them down and dependent on the system so the liberals will continue to have jobs in goverment? When you don't make people responsible this is what happens.

[mycheriamore]

What alot of people DON'T know, is that not only welfare receipients are being told to pass a urinalis. People that are on certain medications are also being forced to not only pass a urinalisis but to go to their doctor every three months in order to continue with the medication. I was injured in 1996 and am still working at a very fast paced job, however I do not have any insurance and I WAS on medication that allowed me to get through the day at work without being miserable in pain. Since this new law has passed, I am required to not only come up with the money for the medication, but now I am supposed to also pay for Dr visit AND urinalisis test every three months. I have never been in trouble and there is no reason for them to suspect that I am doing anything wrong when it comes to using my medication. I feel that now the government is dictating to me what is and supposed to be between me and my doctor. I not only can't afford to follow this law, but I don't believe it is constitutional for them to put their nose in my doctor visits. I have a great repore with my doctor and he knows my history and what is best for me and my situation.

[nonpolitico]

If the Democrats are kicked out will this stop all the anti constitution measures taken/being taken by unelected officials?
Why cannot a citizen have the instigators of the regs. criminalised for their actions in implementing such measures if a judge finds against the measure.
Until that happens, "Innocent until proven guilty" will remain a charade because of Programs which have Regulations which can override a citizens rights to a whole load of issues!!

[wizardlady]

Why, oh why, can't we require our elected representatives, be they local, state, or federal, to submit to a drug test???? After all, they should experience the same pleasures in life which they bestow upon the taxpayers! Welfare recipients can be former taxpayers who have lost their jobs, sometimes due to health problems or for reasons beyond their control. To those who live in IVORY TOWERS, treat yourself to a visit to an AFDC office visit and pretend you need help.....enjoy the humiliation....then you are better prepared to judge.

[OrangPuteh]

If we to be subject to "drug" testing. All elected officials should be tested for alcohol DAILY. DRUG TESTING IS A RACKET.

Alcohol is the real problem.

END THE FILED, FOOLISH WAR ON DRUGS!

[BigMykul]

I wonder how many of those that passed the test did so with the help of those things that can clean your system out. Was the test urine-based or hair-based? Urine-based tests are easy to pass. Most shops that sell paraphenalia also carry the items that can be used to clean the system.
Heck, even Wal-Mart carries something called Goldenseal to help clean out the system.

[grannyl4]

For those who say it's OK to test welfare recipients for drugs before recieving benefits, does that same principle apply to corporate executives and employees who benefit from bail-out money? Probably not. It's easier to kick the poor, isn't it?

[ccdsswrkr09]

It should apply to corporate executives and employees who benefit from bail-out money. I don't think anyone on here would disagree with that. But just because the gov was not smart enough to do that, doesn't mean it should be stopped for welfare recipients where the policy is already in place.

[ccdsswrkr09]

by thechooch1 October 25, 2011 8:18 AM EDT
chevyhotrod there is a Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The same kind of law was ruled unconstitutional in Michigan years ago. Once the Government starts taking our rights away, it is a very slippery slope. No one wants to see Welfare monies going to buy drugs, but ignoring the Constitution is much worse.
______________________________________________________________

See the problem with that is, its not really taking anyone's rights away. If you want assistance from the government then you need to take a drug test. It's not unreasonable for a job to make you take a drug test for you to be hired, why is it so unreasonable for someone to take a drug test before receiving INCOME from the state? In my state for families to receive what's called TCA (temporary cash assistance) they must take a drug screening. If they test positive for something that they do not have a valid prescription for, then they are required to meet with a drug and alcohol counselor and take a class before they can receive their assistance. No one here has complained about this. There are no questions asked about the prescriptions people have, what they are for, ect, just required to show the prescription to verify why the drug is in their system. I don't understand how this is too invasive. If you're doing what your supposed to, then whats the big deal?

[nonpolitico]

Sooo, "If you want assistance from the State then you need to take a drugs test" HUH!!!!
WHO`S MONEY DOES THE "STATE" SPEND????
Rephrase it to "If you want assistance from the State you need to agree to the State having control over your Constitutional rights", and you will see just how far down the slippery slope to totalitarianism the USA has gone!!
Worse, if it is a veteran who has gone through combat and isnow being demeaned by chairbound shiny panted `Crats whos biggest worry is how to file the reports they make out on all applicants.
They are similar now to all the other Security Services we defeated across the world, from the SA to the Stasi, to the KGB, and citizens should be awake to the power creep going on in the so called "land of the Free"
Wake up!!!

[payasyougo]

"The governor obviously disagrees with the decision and he will evaluate his options regarding when to appeal"

One option would be to de-fund the Federal Judges.

So airport scanners and pat-downs don't constitute unreasonable searches if you want to fly but random drug tests or requests for citizenship do?

[euge005]

The numbers show that the people that the criminal Scott targets for this abuse use drugs less than the average in the population. The real reason is to get the testing done in a business that he owns a piece of. He has lost 70M$ of his own money he used to buy the Governors office and has to figure out how to steal more. That and his buiddies the Koch brothers do not want to have to keep funding him alone.