Judge halts drug tests as condition of Florida payments

reuters ^ | 10/24/2011 | Michael Peltier

[tobyhill]

Florida will not be allowed to require applicants for cash assistance to needy families to pass a drug test before receiving payments, a federal judge ruled on Monday.

In a 37-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Scriven in Orlando granted an injunction barring the state from enforcing the new law until the case is resolved.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida on behalf of a University of Central Florida student who refused to take the test when he applied for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, a federal program that provides cash assistance to families with children.

In her ruling, Scriven said the testing procedure could cause irreparable harm to recipients.

[microgood]

government sets plenty of criteria for recieving benefts, this is no different

Actually it is. Suspicionless searches are violations of the 4th Amendment, except under certain circumstances allowed by Supreme Court (sobriety checkpoints, no knock searches, drug testing for workers in vital security and safety industries, and testing students engaging in extra curricular activities).

So unless the Supreme Court is willing to grant additional exceptions to the 4th Amendment, this is a slam dunk as other states have learned the hard/expensive way.

From the article:

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 1997 decision threw out a Georgia law requiring candidates for state office to certify they had passed a drug test. Since then, a federal court in Michigan threw out that state's attempt to require all welfare recipients to be tested.

What is disturbing to me is how many people are willing to ignore the Constitution when it suits a cause they support. This is how we are going to lose all our Constitutional rights (Divide and conquer).

[wouldilie]

Federal Judicial Career

Scriven started her judicial career as a United States magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida from 1997 to 2008. Scriven was nominated to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by President George W. Bush on July 10, 2008 to a seat vacated Patricia C. Fawsett as Fawsett assumed senior status and resigned from her position as the previous Chief judge. Scriven was confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 2008 on a Senate vote and received her commission on September 30, 2008.

[GeronL]

So you even favor drug use for children? How about kiddie porn, fine with you?

freak, get out there and join the OWS

[microgood]

curious how many druggies thus far have been thrown off the welfare rolls here in Florida as a result of these tests?

32 out of 7000. Since the tests are 35 dollars each than it cost $245K to test them. Since 32 are off the roles that saves $14OK per year so if they test every one of them once a year the program is costing an additional $100K to drug test than to not drug test.

[microgood]

So you even favor drug use for children? How about kiddie porn, fine with you?

Sorry, I am not on the Supreme Court. I just happen to know about a million times more than you do about what is going on in this country. It is OK to lash out at me, being so ignorant of our constitution and the current state of our law. But it is also quite pathetic.

[Chode]

the silly cow sees no problem in the people PAYING for the welfare RATS to get drug tested as a condition of employment, but NOT for the RATS to get their "Benefits" of someone else s labor... JAF0V!!!

[GeronL]

lol.

“A zillion times!”

“A kadrillion times infinity!”

[truthguy]

Sorry, I am not on the Supreme Court.

Thank God you are not on the Supreme Court or we just might get worse decisions than what we already have. Although I find it tough to imagine anyone dumber then Kagan and Sotomayer (who isn't intellectually fit to be a traffic court judge).

And you haven't answered my question as to whether any society can survive so many stupid, idiotic, and moronic decisions. Whether the Constitution is that bad or the interpretations are that bad, when horrible decisions are made there are severe consequences and ramifications. Societies cannot survive infinite stupidity and that what we have in the cases of Voter ID and Drug Testing for Welfare recipients. And what about those who are footing the bill, don't they have some rights? The US Legal System is gonna destroy the Republic unless we can find a way to return it to sanity.

[JakeS]

This judge is another worthless steaming pile of yak excrement. Yakkus excrementis. It is time for REAL change.

One more reason to put Gingrich in the white house.

[JakeS]

Gods word tells us that all are to take care of their own kin, but I think He means a man must take care of his family, not a judge corrupting the law to 'take care of' a race.

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.1Ti 5:8

[Venturer]

You didn’t know my mother.LOL

[microgood]

Thank God you are not on the Supreme Court or we just might get worse decisions than what we already have. Although I find it tough to imagine anyone dumber then Kagan and Sotomayer (who isn't intellectually fit to be a traffic court judge).

I do not know what it is about FR, but it seems when you try to explain the current state of the law, many act like I endorse the current state of the law. Shoot the messenger seems to be the norm on FR.

And you haven't answered my question as to whether any society can survive so many stupid, idiotic, and moronic decisions.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution was written over 230 years ago. If you want to call our Founding Fathers stupid, idiotic, and moronic, go ahead. The bottom line is that drug testing without probable cause to believe you have committed a crime is unconstitutional. Noone on the Supreme Court disputes that including Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts. What they have done in certain cases is allow exceptions to that (sobriety checkpoints, etc). This is not one of those cases.

My preference is to eliminate the welfare, not trash the Constitution. Quite a few people have died defending that "piece of paper".

On the other hand, there is no constitutional authority for welfare. It is completely unconstitutional and should be ended.

In addition, I think drug testing, like sobriety checkpoints, are ineffective. The only drug they can really test over a period of time is marijuana. The other water soluble drugs like heroin, cocaine, etc do not stay in your system long. In addition, at least in this case, it looks like it costs more to do the drug testing than you save in not funding those that tested positive anyway so you are not saving any money either (see Post #44).

But I will make no apologies for defending the Constitution. Many people feel that allowing citizens to own guns (2nd Amendment) is stupid, idiotic and moronic and I will defend the 2nd Amendment against them as well. We have an obligation to pass on our freedoms to future generations, and our generation in particular has done a horrible job with that.

[Chode]

absolutely...

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Totally accurate.

[Ken H]

Do you think the Constitution delegates power to fedgov to impose national drug prohibition and fight a WOD? Or, do you think that power is properly reserved to the states?

[newzjunkey]

the testing procedure could cause irreparable harm to recipients

And drugs don't. /s

[abovethefray]

What an elegant way for Reuters to phrase this ‘ cash assistance to needy families’ How could anyone be against that? I think the term welfare is more fitting, however.
I will point out I am certainly subjected to random drug testing for the honor of giving 40% of my earnings to the government.

[Straight Vermonter]

When you joined the Army you gave up your constitutional rights.

Not exactly true. The courts have given the military authority wider latitude than that allowed civil authority. Military personnel, however, still have constitutional rights.

[Joe Boucher]

Cold in your part of Wy. yet?

[ChildOfThe60s]

as I don’t remember “gimme free shit” in the Constitution.

It's a living document and it "grew" that line later on. You just don't know how to interpret it properly.

Irony: Being forced to take a drug test in order to have the privilege of *working* for your money, but being exempted from a drug test in order to have the *right* to free money.