Pubdate: Wed, 26 Oct 2011
Source: News Herald (Panama City, FL)
Copyright: 2011 The News Herald
Contact:  http://www.newsherald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1018

FAILING THE TEST

It didn't take long for Florida's new policy of drug testing welfare 
recipients to run afoul of the Constitution.

The state implemented the testing July 1, and on Monday a federal 
judge in Orlando issued a temporary injunction to halt it on the 
grounds that it likely violated the Fourth Amendment protections 
against illegal searches and seizures.

The case is to constitutional jurisprudence what a fastball over the 
middle of the plate is to Albert Pujols.

Gov. Rick Scott promoted drug testing of welfare recipients as being 
necessary to safeguard public dollars. But U.S. District Judge Mary 
Scriven rejected that argument, writing: "If invoking an interest in 
preventing public funds from potentially being used to fund drug use 
were the only requirement to establish a special need, the state could 
impose drug testing as an eligibility requirement for every 
beneficiary of every government program. Such blanket intrusions 
cannot be countenanced under the Fourth Amendment."

Indeed, why are welfare recipients held to a higher standard of 
conduct than other recipients of taxpayer largess? Being poor doesn't 
give you fewer rights. Florida spends tens of millions of dollars each 
year on "economic incentives" - cash payouts to businesses to lure 
jobs to the state. Why not drug test the CEOs of each company?

For that matter, why not drug test elected officials before each vote 
they take in the Legislature? (Actually, that would be pointless - 
they've already proved they don't need to be high to waste tax dollars.)

There is no evidence that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate 
than the general population. Judge Scriven cited a 1999 study of a 
state pilot project which found that only 5 percent of Florida's 
welfare applicants tested positive for illicit drug use, which is 
lower than the national rate of 8 percent.

Since testing began in July, 32 applicants have failed and more than 
7,000 have passed. State officials pointed out that 1,600 welfare 
applicants refused to take the test, which they argued proves the 
program is weeding out drug users. The judge, though, noted that 
applicants don't have to give a reason why they refuse the test.

Applicants must pay $25 to $45 for the cost of the tests; if they 
pass, the state reimburses them. The high pass rate suggests Florida 
could be spending more on testing than it is saving on welfare payments.

But even if the math were in the state's favor, Judge Scriven 
correctly ruled that still wouldn't justify the program under the 
Fourth Amendment. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the 
constitutionality of suspicionless drug testing of public school 
students on the grounds that their privacy rights are less than those 
of adult citizens, it has been less tolerant of such 
government-mandated tests outside the campus.

Michigan in 1999 passed a similar law requiring random, suspicionless 
testing of residents on public assistance. But it, too, was quickly 
suspended via a legal challenge, and in 2003 a federal appeals court 
overturned it on Fourth Amendment grounds.

The prospects of the law surviving further judicial scrutiny are slim. 
Instead of wasting more time and taxpayer money, Florida should 
refrain from appealing Judge Scriven's ruling and admit what was 
obvious from the start: The statute is unconstitutional.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard R Smith Jr.