Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary and Harriet Leave the Reception in Their Honeymoon Shells
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly
If you sign up
A sponsor will donate $10
Posted on 10/25/2011 8:12:32 AM PDT by NoLibZone
A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida's new law that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
Judge Mary Scriven ruled in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who sought the benefits while finishing his college degree, but refused to take the test. The judge said there was a good chance plaintiff Luis Lebron would succeed in his challenge to the law based on the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from being unfairly searched. The drug test can reveal a host of private medical facts about the individual, Scriven wrote, adding that she found it "troubling" that the drug tests are not kept confidential like medical records. The results can also be shared with law enforcement officers and a drug abuse hotline.
"This potential interception of positive drug tests by law enforcement implicates a `far more substantial' invasion of privacy than in ordinary civil drug testing cases," said Scriven, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.
The judge also said Florida didn't show that the drug testing program meets criteria for exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.
The injunction will stay in place until the judge can hold a full hearing on the matter. She didn't say when that hearing will be scheduled.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
No drug tests for obtaining government aide- just for applying for work.
Once again liberals doing all they can to make working less attractive.
The feds will have to tighten up their rules. They will probably do this just after the next election.
Sheesh. The search and seizure clause only applies to when you have no choice. Nobody HAS TO take this drug test. It is simply a condition of getting a service.
It’s really very black and white. And the foundational issue of protection from illegal search and seizure is missing here. This judge is in someone’s pocket. It is sickening.
I have to pass a drug test in order to earn the money to pay for these deadbeats to sit on their ass eating my tax dollars... why shouldn’t they have to?
Drugs are probably the REASON half of them are sitting on their asses.
It would be unreasonable search if you walked up to random people and demanded it- but not when you are APPLYING FOR ASSISTANCE.
It could actually be called ‘reasonable’ to find out what kind of assistance you need- maybe it is drug rehab.
So, does this mean that the Drunk Driving Checkpoints are all unconstitutional too?
I can understand the point of view (I don't agree with it, but I understand it) saying that a Welfare recipient has no choice but to eat, and to eat he must get a Gov't subsidy. Thus, he has no choice but to comply with a potential 'search'. However, a reasonable person would agree that we all must have some degree of privacy invaded for the survival of any modern society. Drunk Driving stops, pulling a car over on suspiciion of DUI when they weave in traffic, suspicious behavior captured via camera, overheard statements in a secure area (such as 'hijack' or 'explosives' in an airport). Where does 'reasonable' get to be defined?
Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can give money (Welfare) to people, just because they are not working - by their own choice.
I make enough money that I pay taxes that cover at least one welfare queen.
And I DEMAND that she be tested.
From what I’m reading, it looks like the judge doesn’t object to the drug test requirement in and of itself — the problem appears to be the confidentiality (or more precisely, lack thereof) of the test results. I think that’s a reasonable concern, based on the descriptions provided, and a likely enough position to prevail in court to warrant a stay.
Drug tests are an invasion of privacy. Why is it everyone EXCEPT politicians are forced to take these tests?
Another communists anti-American judge.
Not only should Welfare recipients be required to take drug tests, but everyone who receives government aid should as well.
Therefore, farmers who receive Farm Subsidies should take drug tests.
CEO’s of companies that receive government funds and bailouts should take drug tests.
I agree.
I am as conservative as anyone here, I am not on welfare and I don't do drugs, BUT... We had better watch what we ask for because this would give the feds a great deal of power and set a dangerous precedent. Government can later redefine what constitutes "benefits" and put us all under their thumb.
I also agree with this.
The government needs to have obstacles put in the way of such testing, otherwise they will continue to get more and more invasive.
Imagine a blood test to renew your driver’s license or to start receiving Social Security payments or to get a pistol carry permit. How about checking your DNA and recording it in a database while they’re at it?
There are no natural limits to what the government may require, because the government (in general, but especially under the control of Obama) already feels free to disregard the Constitution based on a phony pretext or a nanny-state-inspired whim.
The government is already conspiring to grab your confidential medical records based on such a pretext. What else will they try to get away with if we let them?
We need more judges to put up more such hurdles, based on a plain reading and understanding of Constitutional protections.
So, why then does a truck driver have to pass a drug test to maintain his Government issued CDL and drive on the highways?
I don’t see how this differs significantly from the Government’s long-held position that providing your social security number is voluntary, but if you don’t, you won’t get service.
There seems to be a rash of female leftist judges ,nominated either by Clinton, Carter or Obama on lower court levels which just block any state decided decision which would make sense. Another reason to vote out all Dems. Their propensity to nominate socialist leftist progressive anti-Const. jurists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.