Latest Headlines
- New ‘Wind Phone’ In Cantonment ‘Connects’ Grieving Families With Deceased Loved Ones
- New Details Emerge In Fatal DUI Crash That Killed 14-Year-Old Cantonment Boy; Driver Released On Bond
- Business Alliance Calls For Escambia County To Deed Part of OLF-8 For Light Industrial Use
- Escambia Tax Collector Marcus Pointe Office Moving To New Location; Driving Test Location Changing
- New 332 Lot Subdivision Planned For Devine Farm Road In Cantonment
- These Are This Week’s Road Construction Slow Down Spots
- Northview High’s Calloway Named Winner In VFW Essay Contest
- Florida Gas Prices Trend Lower After 15 Cent Hike, AAA Says
- Traffic Back To All Four Lanes In $4.7 Million Highway 29 Reconstruction In Century
- Man Charged With DUI Manslaughter After Cantonment Boy Dies
Scott Appeals State Employee Drug Testing Case
June 4, 2012
Gov. Rick Scott has followed through on his vow to appeal a federal court ruling that blocked drug testing of state employees.
Scott’s attorneys have filed a notice of taking the case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. The governor said he would pursue an appeal after Miami federal judge Ursula Ungaro ruled last month that a plan to drug test employees violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
Scott issued an executive order last year calling for drug testing, but it was quickly challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. State lawmakers this year also approved a measure aimed at drug testing, but it has not been carried out because of the legal fight.
The notice of appeal does not detail the arguments that Scott’s attorney will make.
By The News Service of Florida
Comments
17 Responses to “Scott Appeals State Employee Drug Testing Case”
REGARDING:
“Government employees are subject to the same laws as every private citizen ”
Not entirely.
Government employees can execute convicted killers. Private citizens aren’t allowed to do so.
Legislators are exempt from traffic laws while going to and from meetings of Congress.
There is debate concerning the constitutionality of private guards for imprisoned persons versus government employed corrections officers.
Private citizens can proclaim their religious beliefs and try to win converts while on the job. Government employees are forbidden under the Constitution.
Private citizens can employ people under restrictions not allowed to government employees.
There really IS a difference.
David thinking of differences
Government employees are subject to the same laws as every private citizen because guess what the laws that apply to government employees apply to everybody. Government employees don’t have special exceptions applied. I guess the question becomes would you like the government to test you at your at your private place of employment? It’s not about employer/employee. It’s about what the government can do and what the Constitution allows. The federal judge is correct.
If the state wants to ensure its workforce is not a bunch drug addicts they should be able to. They are not forcing anybody to take a drug test. If you dont want to take one you can find a place that doesnt test and work there.
To bad you can’t test for lazy non productive state workers who just want to hang in until they can get that fat unearned retirement package..As for drug testing..I am with the crowd who says “If you are clean..why pitch a fit”
REGARDING:
“Nobody should be subjected to random drug test or pre-employment drug screenings, whether they are flipping burgers or working for the state. It’s in the Constitution ”
Not really
[The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.]
(Note that drug screenings aren’t mentioned by name anywhere.)
but even if it were:
whether they’re babysitting nuclear bombs?
—or even ordinary thousand pound high explosive bombs?
whether they’re driving jet fuel down the public highways?
whether they’re carrying a busload of children?
whether they’re pulling a train carrying a hundred tankers of chlorine gas or anhydrous ammonia through the middle of town?
whether they’re flying a jet with over 500 souls into and out of densely populated cities?
I don’t know, some testing in these situations looks like it might be just a wee bit reasonable. Remember the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Besides, the Constitutional limitation on unreasonable searches is a restriction on government power, not on Burger King power. If Burger King doesn’t want drug addicts with communicable diseases making your ice cream cone, give them a break.
David considering unreasonable restrictions
on public safety
So much for limited government!
So you would prefer to have someone who is high evaluating your taxes, driver’s license exam, etc., than have them take a drug test? Maybe if more government workers/officials took drug tests there would be less people making costly mistakes with government money. Just a thought.
This is what happens when you invite a perfect stranger, an outsider into your home and let them tell you how to live.
I have heard it said the people who voted for Scott, do not complain because they are satisfied. I have yet to find anyone who voted for him, to tell me just how satisfied they are.
Nobody should be subjected to random drug test or pre-employment drug screenings, whether they are flipping burgers or working for the state. It’s in the Constitution, ffs. I can’t think of a more unreasonable search and seizure than being required to pee in a cup to keep your job. It’s unbelievable how many people have the attitude that “if I have to take a drug test, everyone should”, rather than “nobody should have to take a drug test”. It’s the height of selfishness. Just how many of your Constitutional rights are you willing to give away just so “they” don’t have something you don’t have?
So I guess you can smoke crack and spend tax dollars while in a Government office, but not to flip a burger at McDonalds.
Mnon…Have you tried complaining to the ACLU? If not, how would they know?
REGARDING:
“Where is the American Civil Liberties Union when I have to take a drug test for a job?! Why is it any different for a state employee?!”
The difference is that individuals have rights not ceded to the government. Government is forbidden to conduct unreasonable searches. Individuals can require you wear a red tutu at work if they wish.
(Further, if you would be willing to do so, you SHOULD do so.)
And there’s the reasonable portion. It is generally considered reasonable to make sure people working around toxic materials or heavy machinery are not in altered mental states lest they kill those around them. Therefore, testing for drugs is considered reasonable.
If the job does not involve such dangers, testing for drugs is considered unreasonable.
If Governor Scott can show where the testing is reasonable, he can continue. If he can not show where it is reasonable, he should not have tried to extend the power of government over individuals’ lives just for his own fun.
David for limited government
Where is the American Civil Liberties Union when I have to take a drug test for a job?! Why is it any different for a state employee?! If there’s nothing to hide there’s nothing to worry about and if I have to drug test to flip burgers than state employees should be drug tested! Someone at the state level is on something with some of the stupid things that has been going on this past 2-3+ years in Florida.
If it’s random (without a reason to test), why should we have to pay for it. Also, has there been bids submitted for testing? and from only companies within our state so that our gets the money from it?
He has no argument, its small minded people going ” oh if my company makes me do it everyone should have to do it.” Private companies aren’t government. People act like small immature children with little ability to think beyond themselves. Scott is an idiot.
Has there been some type rise in state employee related accidents, has there been an increase in state employee drug arrests. Why is this neccesary? With economy the way it is do we really need to spend money in a legal fight to fix a problem that we don’t know really exists. Doesn’t Scott’s wife run his drug testing company that he gave up ownership of while he is in office. Does it go back in his name after he leaves office. (yes i realize his company doesn’t have a monoply on state drug testing)Just questions that i’ve never really heard answers to. If i’m in error so be it. I still would like an answer.
The government employees should be subject to the same laws the rest of us are. If private employers can randomly drug test their employees then the state should too. This is a case of special treatment for government employees and elected officials.