Latest Headlines
- Softball Team Remembers Teammate Killed In Pace Wreck
- Rainy And Warmer Pattern Through Saturday Night
- ECFR Says McDavid Mobile Home Fire Was Sparked By Trash Fire; Firefighters Respond To Ascend
- Vote-By-Mail Ballots Mailed For 2025 Special Primary Election
- Two More Nights Planned For Christmas Lights, Hayride, Goats In Pajamas At Bratt Ranch
- OK, So It’s After Christmas. When Is My Next Trash Collection Day?
- FHP Seeks Info On Fatal HIt And Run In JCPenney Parking Lot
- Two Charged After Backpack Found With Drugs, Cell Phones Near Atmore Prison
- First Responders Put On Christmas Light Show For Children’s Hospital Patients (With Gallery)
- Santa And Mrs. Claus Take Last Minute Trip Through Century, Byrneville
Scott Random Drug Testing For State Employees Ruled Unconstitutional
April 27, 2012
A Miami federal judge has ruled that Gov. Rick Scott’s attempt to require random drug testing for tens of thousands of state workers is unconstitutional, saying Scott did not show a “compelling need” for the controversial plan.
After U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro’s ruling became public Thursday, Scott immediately said he would appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ungaro’s 37-page ruling found that Scott’s issuance last year of an executive order requiring drug tests violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches. The judge also wrote that Scott did not justify a need for the tests.
“In the present case, the court searches in vain for any … compelling need for testing,” said the ruling, which was dated Wednesday. “The (executive order) does not identify a concrete danger that must be addressed by suspicionless drug testing of state employees, and the governor shows no evidence of a drug use problem at the covered agencies.”
Scott issued a written statement reiterating his longstanding position that drug tests will improve the state workforce, and he compared the situation to private employers who have more freedom to require such tests.
“As I have repeatedly explained, I believe that drug testing state employees is a common-sense means of ensuring a safe, efficient and productive workforce,” Scott said. “That is why so many private employers drug test and why the public and Florida’s taxpayers overwhelmingly support this policy.”
But the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — a state-worker union that was the plaintiff in the case — said Ungaro’s ruling protects the privacy and constitutional rights of employees.
“The governor can’t order the state to search people’s bodily fluids for no reason – the Constitution prohibits that sort of government intrusion,” said Howard Simon, the ACLU’s executive director. “And the governor can’t demand that people surrender their constitutional rights for the privilege of working for the state or receiving some other government benefit.”
Scott issued the executive order last year to require drug testing at agencies under his control, though the plan was placed on hold because of the legal challenge, except for some workers at the Department of Corrections. Ungaro’s ruling said the Scott-controlled agencies include about 85,000 employees, or 77 percent of the state workforce.
Despite the legal uncertainty, lawmakers and Scott this year approved a bill that would allow drug testing of employees. The bill would allow, but not require, agencies to conduct random testing every three months.
But a day after signing the bill in March, Scott’s administration said it would delay moving forward with the tests until the legal battle about last year’s executive order is resolved.
While Ungaro’s ruling blocks drug testing for current state employees, she did not rule on whether tests could be required for potential new hires. She sided with an argument by Scott that AFSCME could not sue on behalf of potential state employees who do not belong to the union.
The ACLU’s Simon, however, made clear Thursday that the state would face another legal challenge if it tries to require drug testing of job applicants.
Ungaro’s ruling said the U.S. Supreme Court has differentiated between drug testing by government and private employers. She wrote that government searches “must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing,” unless the government can show a special need.
“The Supreme Court maintains that the government, unlike private employers, can test its employees for illegal drug use only when the testing is consistent with the Fourth Amendment,” wrote Ungaro, who has served as federal judge since 1992 after being nominated by former President George H.W. Bush.
The ruling said Scott cited potential benefits of drug testing, such as increasing workplace health and safety, promoting greater productivity by employees and saving tax dollars. But she wrote that the governor’s office used studies that had a “high level of generality” and lacked specific evidence about issues such as drug use among state employees.
“All of the upheld drug-testing policies (in Supreme Court cases) were tailored to address a specific, serious problem,” Ungaro wrote. “In contrast, the rationale for the Governor’s policy consists of broad prognostications concerning taxpayer savings, improved public service, and reductions in health and safety risks that result from a drug-free workplace.”
By The News Service Florida
Comments
13 Responses to “Scott Random Drug Testing For State Employees Ruled Unconstitutional”
It is time for Gov Snott to be voted out of office! After all, he has a back up plan..if his drug testing labs go under because he can not push this judge around, he can always get a job at the doughnut shop where he got his mother a job!
@ Football Mom – it doesn’t add up, does it? That’’s because ALL drug testing without due process or probable cause is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Yet because the “Ruling Class”, businesses, & special interests, (all backed by HUGE sums of money funnelled into trust funds, campaigns, and God Only Knows What Sort of Banking Fictions) have pushed for continual erosion of our God-Given Rights, based on a fraction of a fraction of the population having drug problems, the proper process of Jucicial Review has been subverted.
“…about 6 percent of the household population aged twelve and older, use illegal drugs on a current basis (within the past thirty days). This number of “past-month” drug users has declined by almost 50 percent from the 1979 high of twenty-five million…”
https://www.ncjrs.gov/htm/chapter2.htm
https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/policy/99ndcs/images/image-09.gif
This falling percentage is in the face of a growing population— think about it.
Granted, the Government’s own language does not allow for “casual users”- ALL users are classified as “abusers”- more propaganda. Statistically speaking, an average of 10% of that 6% will have problems that are serious enought to warrant treatment. As it is, users not showing any difficulties related directly to their drug use, other than legal ones, are shunted into expensive court-ordered programs, and required to inject huge sums of money into this Circus of a Judicial System. The Drug War is nothing more than an excuse to further bloat an already outmoded, beseiged, & defeated cluster of bureacracies. And make Ricky Scott’s friends richer & richer while trampling our God-Given Right to Privacy within our homes & persons.
I have no problem with a random drug test, as long as there are no Florida state politicians invested in a drug-test providers. Kinda like investing in a publishing company and then voting in a mandate to buy new textbooks every six years.
REGARDING:
“It would have been cheaper for the state to just pay the benefits than it turned out to be the deny them to the 2% that tested positive. ”
Considering only the economics of it, we don’t really know if it would have been cheaper or not because we don’t know how many chose not to request benefits because they knew they would fail the test. Perhaps half of them would have failed, perhaps all of them would have failed, perhaps only two percent of them; we just don’t know. We also don’t know how many would have requested benefits, maybe twice as many, maybe five times as many, maybe only ten percent more.
We just don’t know.
Therefore, as an economic matter we just don’t know if it was cheaper or more expensive to do the testing.
And, of course, based on your numbers, if the benefits denied had a value more than fifty times the cost of the test, we would already have saved money. If the test cost ten dollars, benefits would have to be more than five hundred dollars for it to pay out. If the test cost fifty dollars, benefits not paid per positive test would have to be more than $2500.
David for clarity
even if some have to get off drugs to achieve it
Not quite understanding how it’s an infringment (sp?) on the rights of those working for the government but not on mine since I work for a private company. Seriously, can someone please tell me how that works because I just really dont get it.
Good post. But does Florida enforce these rules as as often as the private sector? Just wondering. Seems the ACLU is pushing to test no one. Well back to the Supreme Court. And what ever is good for the government , better be for all off us.
There wasn’t a compelling reason for testing recipients of unemployment benefits either, in the event. It would have been cheaper for the state to just pay the benefits than it turned out to be the deny them to the 2% that tested positive. Look for the Governor to try and decree that state prisons be sold to CCA and the GEO group next, since the legislature refused to cooperate in that scheme for Rick Scott to make back the 75 million of his own money he spent to buy the governship as well.
Just an FYI: ALL state emplyees can be drug tested at any time for cause and most positions can be randomly tested.
Here is the policy directly out of the State of FL employee handbook,
““The state of Florida acknowledges that drug and alcohol use have serious adverse effects in the workplace resulting in lost productivity each year and poses a threat to public health and safety. Maintaining a healthy and productive workforce with safe working conditions free from the effects of drugs decreases the occurrence of injuries on the job, absenteeism and theft, and promotes employee morale.
The Drug-Free Workplace Act promotes the goal of drug-free workplaces within government through fair and reasonable drug-testing methods for the protection of public employees and employers. Prior to actual drug testing, the department provides a copy of the policy to job applicants for safety sensitive positions and employees being tested pursuant to reasonable suspicion.
Section 112.0455, Florida Statutes, identifies and defines the types of drug testing: job applicant testing, routine fitness for duty testing, follow-up testing and reasonable suspicion drug testing. “Reasonable suspicion drug testing” means drug testing based on a belief that an employee is using or has used drugs in violation of the employer’s policy, drawn from specific objective and articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in light of experience. A job applicant is defined in Section 112.0455, Florida Statutes, as “a person who has applied for a special risk or safety-sensitive position with an employer and has been offered employment conditioned upon successfully passing a drug test.” Job applicant testing only provides for the testing of safety-sensitive, special risk or other positions specifically required by legislative authority. To learn more about the other types of drug-testing, review Section 112.0455, Florida Statutes, by visiting the website http://www.leg.state.fl.us/.
All employees are expected to adhere to the state’s standards of conduct concerning the possession and/or use of drugs or alcohol while on duty or while in or on state property. Violations of this policy will result in referral to EAP and/or disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. [Section 112.0455, Florida Statutes]”
Why is Mr. Scott wasting my money with this!?!?!?!?!?!?
I always thought republicans were for personal rights, personal responsibility, no interference or suspicion without a basis from the government. So now everyone that works for the government is under suspicion while republicans are in control in Florida? Plus they will spend more of our tax dollars to fight cases like this to make sure their power is absolute? Give me a break.
Well what is good for the government is good for the private sector, all right lawyers time to start those class action suits against private companies that wish to violate your rights under the constitution. Or is it that the government is becoming more elitist and above the law of the common man? Either test every one or no one..And so mush for the ACLU caring about every ones rights, They only care about their own little social agenda.Hey if it takes suing the private sector companies and costing them millions then so be it. BUT THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS COUNTRY PROTECTS EVERY ONE, NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!
Will Scott reimburse tax payers for wasting everyone’s time on and money on nonsense? I guess he thinks he doesn’t have to follow the constitution
Scott is heavily invested in the drug testing facilities. It was corrupt from the start
Next up i going to be the prayer bill he passed, watch how fast it gets shot down
well, what’s the fun of being governor if you can’t push people around?
It is nice to see that there are some Judges who understand and agree that suspicionless drug tests are a violation of our 4th Amendment rights! Before anyone decides to jump my opinion here, please understand that I fully agree with and see absolutely nothing wrong with for-cause, post-accident, and more often than not: pre-employment testing.
Kudos, Judge Ungaro!