Latest Headlines
- Escambia School Board Buys 36 Acres For $3.9 Million For New Beulah School
- Century Spending Over $3.3 Million On Five Sewage Lift Stations
- Man Gets 50 Years In Prison For 2022 Murder At Cantonment Gas Station
- Pedestrian Checking Trailer Tire Struck By Car In Two Vehicle Crash Near Century
- State Funding $240 Million Beulah I-10 Interchange
- Failed Urban Development Century YouthFirst Program Finally Repays Unsecured Loan From Century
- Escambia Public School Hosting Job Fair On July 29
- Woman Arrested In Kentucky For Fatal 2023 Escambia County Hit And Run
- ‘Operation Southern Slow Down; Targets Speeding In Five States
- Atmore Man, Century Woman Arrested During Suspicious Vehicle Investigation
Florida Appeals Court: Welfare Drug Testing Unconstitutional
December 4, 2014
Less than two weeks after hearing arguments in the case, a federal appeals court Wednesday again rejected a Florida law pushed by Gov. Rick Scott requiring welfare applicants to submit to drug tests before they can receive benefits.
The 2011 law “offends the Fourth Amendment” protections from unreasonable searches by the government, a three-judge panel ruled in a 54-page opinion authored by Judge Stanley Marcus.
“We respect the state’s overarching and laudable desire to promote work, protect families, and conserve resources. But, above all else, we must enforce the Constitution and the limits it places on government. If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on blanket government searches, we must — and we do — hold that (the Florida law) crosses the constitutional line,” Marcus wrote.
The ruling, which upheld a final judgment late last year by U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven, is the fourth time courts have sided with the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran and single father. The lawsuit was filed shortly after the law went into effect in mid-2011. Scott used mandatory drug tests as an issue in his 2010 campaign.
“This is a resounding affirmation of the values that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects – that none of us can be forced to submit to invasive and humiliating searches at the whim of the government, and that the Constitution protects the poor and the wealthy alike. The court has once again confirmed what we argued all along: that the state of Florida cannot treat an entire class of people like suspected criminals simply because they’ve asked the state for temporary assistance,” ACLU of Florida associate legal director Maria Kayanan, who argued the case before the court Nov. 20, said in a statement.
Scott can either ask the 11th Circuit for an “en banc” review by the entire court or pursue an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Scott administration did not comment Wednesday afternoon on the ruling. Despite repeated court decisions finding that the welfare drug testing law is unconstitutional, Scott and his lawyers have refused to back down from their position that the urine tests are needed to make sure poor children don’t grow up in drug-riddled households.
But the appeals-court judges again rejected the Scott administration’s arguments, saying that the state failed to make its case.
In effect from July 1, 2011, until Oct. 24, 2011, when Scriven issued a preliminary injunction putting it on hold, the law required applicants seeking benefits in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program — emergency cash benefits for “the poorest of the poor,” available to expectant mothers and families with children — to submit to and pay for urine tests, which range from $24 to $45. The money would be reimbursed if the tests were negative, and parents who failed the tests could designate someone else to receive cash benefits on behalf of their children.
During the period in which the law was in effect, 4,406 applicants submitted to drug testing. Only 108 — less than 3 percent — tested positive for drugs. Another 2,306 applicants failed to complete the applications or receive the drug screens.
“Viewing all of the facts in the light most favorable to the state, we agree with the district court that the state has failed to establish a demonstrable or peculiar drug-use problem among TANF applicants. If anything, the evidence extant suggests quite the opposite: that rates of drug use in the TANF population are no greater than for those who receive other government benefits, or even for the general public,” Marcus wrote.
The U.S. Supreme Court has made exceptions for the “closely guarded category” of government searches, Marcus wrote, including for U.S. Customs drug-interdiction agents, government workers whose jobs require that they carry guns and student athletes. But the nation’s highest court refused to sign off on a Georgia law that would have required mandatory drug testing of candidates for statewide office.
Scott is also involved in a separate drawn-out court battle over an executive order demanding that state workers submit to suspicion-less drug tests. The U.S. Supreme Court last year refused to take up that case, but Scott is expected to seek the high court’s review again if lower courts continue to rule against him.
So far, the state, at Scott’s bidding, has spent more than $400,000 on legal battles related to his attempts to require drug testing for state employees and welfare applicants.
Scott’s lawyers argued that the state had a “special need” for an exception to the constitutional protections against government searches and seizures to ensure that TANF participants were prepared to enter the work force, ensure that the TANF program met its child-welfare and family-stability goals and guarantee that public funds are used for their intended purposes.
But Scott did not convince the judges that the “special need” exists.
“Of course, citizens do not abandon all hope of privacy by applying for government assistance. By virtue of poverty, TANF applicants are not stripped of their legitimate expectations of privacy — they are not employees in dangerous vocations or students subject to the (power) of the state,” Marcus wrote.
He added: “Encouraging employability, protecting children, and conserving public funds are general — and unquestionably legitimate — public concerns. But empirical evidence indicates these needs are not specific to or special for TANF applicants, nor is drug testing essential to ensuring the success of the TANF program as a whole.”
by Dara Kam, The News Service of Florida
Comments
31 Responses to “Florida Appeals Court: Welfare Drug Testing Unconstitutional”
CONTEMPLATING:
“Yet people have no problem to go fight for other countries send Billon’s to them but if a child here is in need its not OK to ask for help.”
Actually, that is not exactly true.
Few like sending their children to fight in other countries and risk being injured or killed ever for any reason.
Nobody likes giving money to people in other lands if it comes out of our pockets or if we have to borrow it from China.
Politicians have to convince us it is needed.
This works for revenge for attacks against the American people and threats against the American people.
And if you will check, nobody has proposed children not be helped. The fear they have expressed is that money intended to help the children will be used instead to enrich some drug pusher. The interesting thing is that so many are afraid to show they will use the funds to help their children rather than buy dope.
David for actually helping the children
(not that drug pushers aren’t somebody’s children too)
Yet people have no problem to go fight for other countries send Billon’s to them but if a child here is in need its not OK to ask for help.
@mnon
Regarding: “Drug testing is unconstitutional for welfare because we have the right to privacy in our home from the governments eyes.”
You are absolutely right! You have the right to privacy in your home. The government can not force you to open your door without a warrant.
However, I am sure that the testing would have occurred at the Department of Children and Families office. Therefore, your argument is null and void. If we follow the exact phrasing of the constitution then the tests are completely legal. Ain’t wording a bitch.
The problem is that nobody was actually required to agree to be tested.
Imagine I offered a million dollars to anyone who took and passed a drug test.
Imagine I was told I couldn’t make that offer. Whoops, never mind. The government is offering money to employees who do certain things to make themselves healthier, since that will statistically make them more productive and less likely to need health care.
Let’s just force them/you to give the money without proof of compliance.
Yeah, baby!!
David for logical conclusions
“What is the problem with a test to get taxpayer money?”
This is the problem with it;
“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.”
This is also the problem with having to be tested for a job. It is crystal clear and not at all ambiguous. No probable cause, no search. Do you think you hould you have to pass in IQ test and a psychological screening to own a gun? I think that’s a good idea, but the problem is, the constitution prohibits it. If you claim to to support the constitution, you have to support all of it. You can’t just pick and choose the parts that are convenient for you.
While this is a good concept im opposed to more tax money being funneled to pay for millions of drug tests. That money could go to economic development. Any WF recipient with half a brain could cheat a drug test with detox or hidden synthetic urine(both widely and easily available). That would add to more wasted money buying millions of drug tests, while some corporation profits…probally supplying them to FL government at a 200% markup…then using that money to continue to lobby support for this bill.
No system is perfect.
There are three kinds of people in this world – those who make a their living by performing services or producing something other than more children (tax payers), those who make their living by producing nothing other than more of their kind (welfare recipients) and those who make their living by producing havoc (lawyers – which includes all lawyers appointed as judges). Has anyone considered who really “wins” by the court’s decision? Much of our legal system is built around the illegality of drugs. Threatening to stop paying the extortion money …er, uh I mean “entitlements” to the terminally lazy might be an incentive for some of them to stop using illegal drugs or, dare I say, get a job and stop leaching off the system. Thus fewer drug users required fewer prosecution and defense lawyers, fewer judges and fewer cops. These legal bozos are quick to point out the protections of the 4th amendment. Can someone please tell me which constitutional amendment says that U.S. citizens are entitled to the “free” money in the first place? Seems to me that tax dollars are being unreasonably seized from tax payers to fund the drug-using welfare recipients.
Drug testing for your job is for insurance purposes in case of injury/accident. That is why you’re drug tested when you have an accident on the job, not because the company is looking to cut you off/fire you. That is also why there are random screenings on some jobs. Some jobs insurance requires the company to test X number of employees every X amount of months.
Drug testing is unconstitutional for welfare because we have the right to privacy in our home from the governments eyes. The government having the power to invade our home when you need help is where the problem is. It would be like asking Iran for help with oil and while helping us they can just walk into any home in the US and ruin your life for no other reason than they hate dirty Americans (or in case of welfare testing, dirty immigrants, dirty low income people, etc).
If that is hard for people to understand then THEY are what is wrong with the US system. Not the ones on welfare or fighting against lives being invaded for no reason other than because you think someone is getting off easier in life than the working folks.
THAT again is the issue, your own biases. Your biases are there already, without it even passing, so again thank God it failed.
@rufus so true …wow those who work and pay for these programs via taxes yield to drug screens no problem yet those who get free money are whiney children who cry foul. Sadly, it is very little to ask or expect in order to receive help yet people have such an issue with it ….that in of itself reflects very poorly on our society. I believe if the expectation of passing a drug test for free reread free money is a violation of the 4th amendment then so should be the expectation that one should pass a drug test for employment be a violation of the 4th amendment. Yea, lets just say that. Using too broad a brush while interpreting the meaning can sometimes lead to idiocy as evidenced in this case. Asking for free money should be no less than asking for a job and if by asking for a job you lend yourself to search so too should you by asking for free money. Period.
“what is so unconstitutional about getting drug tested especially if you have children.”
Seriously? It’s called the 4th amendment. Try reading it sometime.
Amendment IV
“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.”
Notice this rejected requirement did not involve searches or warrants or seizures or any criminal charges even if tests showed the supplicant were using illegal drugs.
It involved an inducement to give personal information by giving money to those willing to give it.
This creates a take-it-or-leave-it situation. Nobody is required to give help to the needy, but if they do, they aren’t allwed to see if the help is actually helping.
This would tempt many to just drop the whole thing if they were afraid their help was actually hurting the recipients. Others would delve into other systems less likely to induce abuse.
David for truth
@ MNON: “Okay you have a job that requires drug tests, and? That is an agreement between you and that “private sector” employer.”
I work for the US Government and I am randomly pee tested quite regularly. Since I don’t use illegal drugs, I don’t have a problem with it.
“Anyone else ever notice that “OUR” government ran out of money, shut down the Blue Angels, cut military pay raises, laid off workers, closed our national parks, withheld career advancement and promotions for our soldiers and sailors BUT never did run our of money for Welfare?”
@ Bob: Great point! They didn’t stop pee testing their employees either.
Welfare was not meant as the generational curse it has become. It was meant to help people over the hump until they can better their situations or for those permanently disabled, to help out. Now, if we drug tested and got all of the folks off welfare who could work but choose not to, then I would say we could discontinue the drug testing. Until then, they need to be tested. They don’t have a constitutional right to welfare, so we should be able to have them tested as part of their “agreement” to accept welfare!
When I was on active duty, we had to test 300 percent of the company each year. I had to take a test to get a job. When I had an on the job injury, I had to take a test. What is the problem with a test to get taxpayer money?
“Seriously. Its called the 4th amendment..try reading it sometime.”
Maybe the constitution needs a re-write..bit outdated to say the least and btw..it was written back when there was only 2 people on the planet….
“what is so unconstitutional about getting drug tested especially if you have children.”
Seriously? It’s called the 4th amendment. Try reading it sometime.
No to testing United States citizens, when millions $$$$ and more are given to foreign nations with out requiring them to take a test.
what is so unconstitutional about getting drug tested especially if you have children. Children deserve to have drug free parents. having kids you cant afford to begin with should be unconstitutional…give me a break…duhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I had to pass a urine test when I got my job, They should have to also to get my tax money.
I don’t care so much about testing as about the things that the EBT can be used for.
Essentially if you are buying food of ANY kind you can use EBT. No need to shop for the best prices or avoid high priced foods.. Lobster sure, big T-Bones, no problem… If I see someone in line ahead of me and notice that ALL the foods are name brand and high end consistently they are using a food card.
No need to be careful to avoid unhealthy foods. No worry about prices or buying the lower priced items. The best thing we could for those on the system is to limit them to foods that are healthy for them. They will be better off and we will have less health costs.
I say make people have healthy choices if they want it for free. No chips. No steaks, lobster,… NO COOKIES, CANDIES, soda, energy drinks (yes they are covered too),… Set limits on sodium and fat content and that alone would help improve their health.
If they want more choices then do what I do. If I want to have money to waste on things I want then I get a job that pays more.
I would bet that most people who are doing the crime/drugs in Escambia County live in the low income areas. Just watch the news and you can see that most (90%) of the crime comes from those areas. Close your eyes and listen to your local news and you would swear you are in downtown New Orleans. And if you listen and know the Pensacola area, then you know it’s coming from the low income areas. Come on people wake up and see what in front of you. This group of people who get all the free handouts are committing the most crime and DRUGS are playing a big part of it. We need to test them and we need to close the Methadone clinic on 29. People are leaving there every day high on drugs. We test people with a CDL driver license that is Government mandated and that not unconstitutional, but people who live off the system and drive while on their dope don’t have to be tested. Doesn’t sound fair or the right thing to do to me. What happen to time limits for people living off the system 6- month’s sound fair to give you a chance to get on your feet. People don’t want to get on their feet, they are retired and living the good life while the 48% of us are working to support them. 48% was the figure on the news the other day. We can’t solve everybody problem but we need to get the dead beats off the system and the one’s that need it (Truly) can keep it. If you are able to work then you should work.
MY TWO CENTS
Orange Nehi, that’s what you sound like; I remember being very small child and having to drive for over two hours to get to the children’s hospital for spinal taps, painful testing; cast placed on my legs, the heat, no air conditioning in those days. We left at 3:30AM and headed home at 2:30 PM. We might stop for a bite to eat and cool off in a restaurant, I was happy to get an Orange Nehi, we would head home the two hours. My brothers and sisters would find me in casts up to my hips but complain that I got an Orange Nehi and they didn’t. The complained bitterly, never once considering what I may gone through, or even the wet heavy casts I had to wear. They didn’t complain while I was stuck on the couch in a hot house while they played outside. Frolicked in the water hose sprinkler. You sound like them. Why not try loving those with less instead of so bitterly complaining about people. Jesus is the judge in the end.
Well said “just me” and “429″. If taking a drug test to get free money from us tax payers, who do pee in a cup for money we earn and aren’t simply given, is unconstitutiona, then testing for employment,random tests and peeing in a cup if we get injured on the job should be also. Btw I could care less if my employer or anybody else requires me to pee in a cup because there is no chance I’ll drop dirty and jeopardize my livelihood.
The reason people on EBT can afford top of the line seafood or anything else for the matter is because they get their supply of necessary groceries from the food banks.
The beggars on the street corners holding card board signs are WORKING as a team. They are picked up routinely by late model cars at the end of their shift.
Why blame anyone? They took the time to study the system we created and are simply using it to their advantage.
“Another 2,306 applicants failed to complete the applications or receive the drug screens.” …
Could it be because they WOULD have tested positive had the completed the test.
Anyone else ever notice that “OUR” government ran out of money, shut down the Blue Angels, cut military pay raises, laid off workers, closed our national parks, withheld career advancement and promotions for our soldiers and sailors BUT never did run our of money for Welfare?
Seems the Welfare recipients are protected by a huge umbrella while we who work are subject to the random drug testing and dismissal — lose our jobs and income — meaning we could become recipients of Welfare.
This country’s leadership has lost its collective mind.
TEST the Welfare folks and help put a stop to waste and enabling drug use and drug sellers.
I agree with this 100%. Just because you need help does not mean you should lose your right to privacy. Kudos to those in favor of getting rid of this stupid law!
annnd BOOM!
This has been said each time this has came up, “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” I don’t understand why so many people don’t recognize this. I believe people are just so afraid someone is getting it ‘easier’ than they are. Give it a rest and worry about your own household.
Okay you have a job that requires drug tests, and? That is an agreement between you and that “private sector” employer.
To allow drug testing for welfare allows all kinds of racist and biased doors to open. Not to mention, you think home invasions and robberies are happening too often now? Take 20-30% of those tested off welfare and see what happens, desperate people will do desperate things… even a mom or dad who are struggling and taking care of their children on welfare who gets popped with something as harmless as marijuana in their system.
REGARDING:
“We should go back to the old school commodities program they used to have. Canned butter and cheese.
Give them military MRE’s that will sustain them instead of a free for all credit card.”
Nah, not butter, too much fat.
Same with cheese.
MRE’s are good but too many calories.
But a simple, nutritional meal free of salt, sugar, gluten is surely on the right track for a nanny government.
David for lima beans, black eyed peas, tofu
“Subject to the power of the state”
Is that what happens when you work?
What a joke. We were randomly tested when I served in the military and we never felt that our rights were being infringed upon. If they have money for drugs, they have money for food and other necessities.
People need help from time to time and should not go hungry between jobs and hardships. Free has became a way of life for many,… Too many.
I was approached by a homeless person while putting my meager supply of groceries in my truck, asking for a dollar.
While giving his poor mouth sob story , his free cell phone rang and he asked if I could wait minute while he answered the call.
Just today I went to a fish market to get some fresh mullet for dinner. I looked over the shrimp, crabs and lobster I can not afford on my budget while watching folks capable of working, purchasing top of the line seafood. Paying for it all with an EBT, or food stamp card.!!
We should go back to the old school commodities program they used to have. Canned butter and cheese.
Give them military MRE’s that will sustain them instead of a free for all credit card.
Just not right!
If drug testing for welfare is “unconstitutional”
Then drug testing for employment and random drug testing while
during employment oughtta be deemed “unconstitutional”