Latest Headlines
- ‘It’s A Blessing’ – Volunteers Build Wheelchair Ramp For Molino Veteran
- Cantonment Man Charged With Stealing Metal From Church During Service Hours
- Undocumented Farm Worker, 45, Gets 25 Years For Attempted Sexual Battery Of 11-Year Old In Walnut Hill
- Bratt, Byrneville Elementary Students Create Winning EREC Meeting Promo Posters
- Make-A-Wish Grants Wish For Girl, 4, With A Barbie Camper
- Fields Of Faith: Community Worship Service Held At Northview High
- Missing Child Alert Issued For Alabama Teen
- 63 New Members Inducted Into Northview High Beta Club
- Blue Wahoos School Shuckers On Education Day
- 2-Month-Old Passes Away Following Escambia County Wreck
Scott Drops Fight For Welfare Applicant Drug Testing
March 5, 2015
After spending at least $300,000 of taxpayer money on legal expenses, Gov. Rick Scott is abandoning his fight to force welfare applicants to undergo mandatory drug tests.
A federal appeals court ruled in December that the state’s mandatory, suspicion-less drug testing of applicants in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program is an unconstitutional violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
Tuesday was the deadline for Scott to ask for an “en banc” review from the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld previous court decisions that the Florida law is unconstitutional, or to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We chose not to appeal this case. The governor is continuing to protect Florida children any way he can and create an environment where families can get jobs so they are able to pursue their dreams in safe communities,” Scott spokeswoman Jackie Schutz said in a statement Wednesday evening.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the challenge on behalf of single father and Navy veteran Luis Lebron shortly after the law went into effect in 2011, hailed the end of the drawn-out legal battle over the drug tests, an issue Scott campaigned on during his first bid for governor in 2010.
“This law was always about scoring political points on the backs of Florida’s poor and treating them like suspected criminals without suspicion or evidence. It not only offended the dignity of families who are struggling to get by and need temporary assistance, but it also offended constitutional protections against invasive government searches,” ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a statement.
In December’s 54-page opinion authored by appeals-court Judge Stanley Marcus, the Atlanta-based court rejected Scott’s arguments that the drug tests are needed to ensure that children in poor families grow up in drug-free homes. The state also argued that TANF applicants would give up privacy rights by consenting to urine tests to be eligible for benefits.
The law “offends the Fourth Amendment,” Marcus wrote, and relied on the state’s own evidence showing that, during the short time that the law was in effect, fewer than 3 percent of TANF applicants tested positive for drugs.
“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.
Scott, however, has not totally abandoned a separate effort to drug test state workers.
The governor was forced to capitulate on an executive order requiring all state employees to submit to urine tests. The federal appeals court ruled last year that Scott could not constitutionally justify drug testing for all types of state workers without a reason. Scott and lawyers for the ACLU of Florida, which represents the state workers’ union, haggled for months before reaching consensus on classes of jobs that could be eligible for the tests. The U.S. Supreme Court this summer refused to hear an appeal in the case, which is pending before a federal judge in Miami.
by Dara Kam, The News Service of Florida
Comments
22 Responses to “Scott Drops Fight For Welfare Applicant Drug Testing”
I understand people have hard times, and sometimes just can’t make enough to make ends meet. That does not make anyone stupid or less deserving of assistance!! However, I find it amazing how we usually have to be drug tested for any job and it’s legal. Have an accident on the job and your getting tested….and it’s legal. The government requires us to drug test for a job with them. Hell the kids in the state of Florida public schools even get to be drug tested if they participate in any extracurricular activities, sports, etc. (and the school pays for it) So explain to me why it’s a big deal for someone getting government assistance to get drug tested? I think Scott could have continued spending money and in the long run it would have saved the taxpayers a ton!! I think the state could still pay for the testing and still be ahead of the game!!! Put an end to people abusing the system!!
(The law “offends the Fourth Amendment,” Marcus wrote, and relied on the state’s own evidence showing that, during the short time that the law was in effect, fewer than 3 percent of TANF applicants tested positive for drugs.)
I don’t see anything about paying for it being the reason..
Scott knew this would never pass the court system by making the applicant pay for it. It was all about getting elected again. Doesn’t matter which side you are on in this you gotta respect him for being able to fool a bunch of people over where he stood on it. If the state had paid for the test the court system wouldn’t have rejected it.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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 searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America.
It wasn’t till Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court held that its protections, such as the warrant requirement, extend to the privacy of individuals as well as physical locations.
Read it and you will see the political blurred lines to which this went from what it initial was to privacy.
I myself work and understand that my money goes towards people who may need real assistance so if the people who want to keep taking drugs I say keep cracking down on them and lets over load the already over loaded jail systems and then they can complain about that how were are arresting the poor person on petty drug charges.
These republican “patriots” are comical,, don’t touch my 2nd amendment but we don’t care about the 4th amendment.. I personally support all of the Constitution…
Your suppositions that everyone who is poor is doing drugs is just stupid. You because of the CONSERVATIVES became a so called “right to work State” and in so doing gave corporations the right to do anything they want to you, pay you lower wages, drug test you, your own fault. Don’t take it out on the poor, because you allowed yourself to be victimized.
I’ll tell you what is a waste of tax payer money, all these BUMS that are on the welfare system! They are costing the taxpayer a whole lot more than a measly drug test, but thats OK because folks its gonna come to a head. One day uncle daddy not gonna have no mo’ money to pay. Its coming watch an see!!!
@Rufus – You are right. The government can not make mandatory drug screens. That is why they are not mandatory. If you don’t want to take one you don’t have to. You just won’t get your God given Constitutional right to the rest of the tax payer paying your bill.
What a COMPLETE waste of taxpayer money. And for all you Conservatives who think the Government should keep this fight going, just go ahead and label yourselves a hypocrite because that is exactly what you are.
“Stop shredding the Constitution” you scream
‘Unless it affects the poor, minority or out of work’ you whimper
Have you no shame???
If you support the constitution, you cannot support mandatory drug screens. No probably cause means no search and no seizure. The constitution is not even slightly vague on this matter.
Haha take that republicans! So wrong and disrespectful for them to even do that in the first place. Glad they pulled it.
If you want benefits you should have to pass a drug screen. Simple, end of story.
Should they have to pay for it, maybe not. I did not have to pay for a drug screen for my work, so I can understand them not wanting to do so either. How much would the state save if they paid for the tests, possibly eliminating benefits paid to a drug user? Would that offset the costs associated with the tests?
Would this put children at further risk of hunger? It may, but then if the parents can afford and (in turn) use drugs perhaps those children should not be in their care anyway.
How is this in any way infringing on their rights, when it is a MANDATE for almost every employer to require a drug screen? Want benefits? Don’t use drugs! Do you use drugs, but still need to feed your family? Provide a clause that so long as they seek and undergo treatment to stop their addiction they can receive benefits provided they continue to pass random drug test. If the fail more than two tests, revoke the benifits for six months, and while you are at it get child protection involved. Now you are addressing the problem directly, not just glassing over the issue.
Simple common sense to me, but then again I have been wrong before (or so I am frequently told).
It’s amusing to see whats going on with our legal system. Leadership picks and chooses which laws to be and not to be enforced. They also pass un-Constitutional laws, then turn right around and run to the Constitution to keep a group from being drug tested in order to receive state benefits.
I am working today outside in 21 degree temp, it’s sleeting to feed my family and pay my bills. And yes, I had to pass a drug test to do it. Part of my hard earned money goes to these people who gets it for free without a drug test and can but what they want and not necessarily what they need. I wish I could do this but I am able to work and that is whatvhas to be done to survive. Is it far to the working people, I think not but politics rule. Gov. Scott should have fought this fight for people like me.
This is a “FIGHT” that should be continued. They need to sit back, take a good look at the Judge’s decision, and then find a way to come back an implement the Drug Testing that would pass Constitution Muster.
I have long tried to figure out how the can allow Drug Testing for someone to get a job, and support the Freebies like Welfare, but not test those getting this support. It just seems that if you can be drug tested for a job, then being drug tested to get a workers free money should definitely be a law. I have NO Problem with the Drug Testing, as I do not want to be working next to, or with, someone that is messed up on Drugs!
This is a Fight that Scott needs to try and win!
I agree with TJ help should be for nessities only, not cable, phones, cars, etc.
@Get Real
~~~*ding!ding!ding!*~~~
We have a winner.
Then why are our rights being violated to get a job???
That’s because now in our society welfare and benefits are a “Constitutional right.” Most all of us are subject to drug testing at our workplace to receive our paycheck and benefits. If you are taking government payed benefits you should be subject to the same. I think the current system is a joke and should go to a WIC type set up where you get checks or vouchers that are only good on certain types of foods that are sufficient to live a healthy life. When you can use EBT to buy pizza, cokes, and twinkies the system has lost its way.
Pick you battles.
This was worth fighting for, if they want help, & they’re getting it from programs, they should be able to pass a drug test, after all they’re supposed to be getting it for their kids, right? Who’s to say they wouldn’t swap food for money to buy drugs with, it ought to be an incentive to quit for their kids.
I don’t have a problem with drug testing anyone on any type of government assistance because if you need help then why and how can you afford drugs? I am subject to random drug testing just because I have a commercial drivers license and am not getting help but am paying for it as a tax payer. I don’t mind the test because I have nothing to hide if these people get upset they are probably hiding something. If you get help there should be rules and standards to be met.