FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
[ Last | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]

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.

Sup. Ct. Justices Won't Let State Require Drug Testing of Elected Officials

News/Current Events Front Page News
Source: FindLaw Legal News
Published: 6/29/00
Posted on 06/30/2000 02:57:22 PDT by Sandy

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused to let a state require its elected officials to undergo random drug testing.

The court, acting without comment Thursday, rejected an appeal by Louisiana officials that said such random tests do not violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches because the state has ``special needs'' to deter drug use.

In 1997, the justices ruled in a Georgia case that states cannot force political candidates to take drug tests merely to demonstrate the government's commitment to the war on drugs.

That same year, Louisiana enacted a law requiring elected state officials, except for judges, to undergo random drug tests to ensure they ``are persons of integrity, sound judgment, reliability and seriousness of purpose.''

The officials are to be tested for illegal drugs including marijuana, opiates, cocaine and amphetamines.

Test results would be disclosed only to the elected official and a representative of the state Board of Ethics. Officials who fail would be required to take a second test.

If that test also indicates illegal drug use, the official would face a public hearing, possible censure and a fine of up to $10,000.

The law was challenged in federal court by Avery C. Alexander and Arthur A. Morrell, state lawmakers representing Orleans Parish.

A federal judge struck down the testing program as unconstitutional, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in late 1998.

``The public's interest in preventing drug abuse among elected officials, while not insignificant, cannot supersede one of the Constitution's most fundamental proscriptions,'' the appeals court said.

The Constitution's Fourth Amendment generally bans searches not based on ``probable cause'' to suspect a crime.

But in previous rulings, the Supreme Court has allowed random searches for railroad workers and U.S. Customs agents who enforce anti-drug laws, citing public health and safety.

The court also has allowed random drug testing of student athletes in public schools because of the national concern over drug use by youngsters.

In the appeal acted on Thursday, Louisiana's lawyers acknowledged there had been no proof that state officials had abused drugs. But they said elected officials ``must be beyond reproach'' regarding drug abuse, and that there was a ``real and concrete danger'' that drug use would harm their judgment and official acts.

The lawmakers' attorneys said the appeals court ruling was correct. ``Louisiana says it is joining the drug war; that's not a reason to deprive people of their Fourth Amendment protections,'' the lawyers said.

The case is Louisiana v. O'Neill, 99-1552.

---

On the Net: For the appeals court ruling in O'Neill v. Louisiana: http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html and click on 5th Circuit.


"Louisiana says it is joining the drug war; that's not a reason to deprive people of their Fourth Amendment protections."

Right. We wouldn't want to deprive our more-equal-than-thou "public servants" of THEIR 4th Amendment protections.

1 Posted on 06/30/2000 02:57:22 PDT by Sandy
[ Reply | Private Reply | Top | Last ]


To: Sandy

to undergo random drug tests to ensure they ``are persons of integrity, sound judgment, reliability and seriousness of purpose.''

If only it were that easy. What a joke!

2 Posted on 06/30/2000 03:07:39 PDT by RJCogburn
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Sandy

FWIW, Alexander and Morell represent districts rampant with crack dealers and gang members. Can't declare war on the homies, now can we?

3 Posted on 06/30/2000 03:07:44 PDT by CholeraJoe
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: CholeraJoe

``The public's interest in preventing drug abuse among elected officials, while not insignificant, cannot supersede one of the Constitution's most fundamental proscriptions,''

It would be interesting to find out what they said on any civilian case regarding random drug testing in the workplace. In the words of Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the king."

4 Posted on 06/30/2000 03:34:57 PDT by ridensm
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | Top | Last ]


To: ridensm

The ACLU site (aclu.org) has a lot on this.

5 Posted on 06/30/2000 03:41:46 PDT by Ed_in_NJ
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]


To: ridensm

Ah, but Michigan has a test similar to this for the elected.

Before you can take office, you have to pay up any outstanding tax bills. Property, income, garbage bills, parking tickets, sewer district, everything.

If you have to prove you are scofflaw free, why not drug and alcohol free? And judges are the best place to start.

6 Posted on 06/30/2000 05:12:10 PDT by spudsmaki
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]


To: Sandy

Sandy, But the jobs aren't that important. These people only think of ways to run other people's lives {In drug induced states of mind?}. It's not like they were truck drivers or something important. Peace and love, George.

7 Posted on 06/30/2000 06:11:08 PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: ridensm

Speaking of the king: they should test our king (POTUS).

8 Posted on 06/30/2000 06:29:05 PDT by Lucky
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]


To: Sandy

If the Drug War and all its incidental tyrannies were visited upon the wealthy and powerful as much as the poor and disenfranchised, it would be declared null and void tomorrow.

9 Posted on 06/30/2000 06:32:26 PDT by Wolfie
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Sandy + ALL

I think this is GREAT!!

As a crewmember for a major airline.... I have to yield my constitutional rights at least twice a year.. for random screening--without probable cause... or any other legal considerations--If I refuse, I lose my livelihood.

Now lemme see... How much more "critical" is it that those who govern, rule, spend, and make policy should not be doing so under the influence??

Either these politicos get the random screen... or I should be set free from same-- whose "rights" are we protecting...hmmmm

Regards to all

10 Posted on 06/30/2000 06:33:34 PDT by Wings-n-Wind
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Sandy

Perhaps we should drug test the Supremes...Our day will come...

11 Posted on 06/30/2000 06:39:04 PDT by heavyd
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Sandy

So it's unfair to piss test those who pass laws requiring piss tests.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Hail to the King, baby.

12 Posted on 06/30/2000 06:45:59 PDT by RebelStorm
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Sandy

Theres a ban on unreasonable searches?

Phil

13 Posted on 06/30/2000 06:48:09 PDT by Smithp67
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Smithp67

Only for the privileged.

14 Posted on 06/30/2000 20:48:05 PDT by Sandy
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]


To: Sandy

Leaders my ass, they are wannabee our rulers...


"Bury me on my face", said Diogenes,"for soon the world will go topsy-turvy"

or something like that

15 Posted on 10/06/2000 11:21:16 PDT by fod
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | Top | Last ]


To: fod

LOL. I just love when the Court's in session. They're so fun to watch, IMHO.

16 Posted on 10/06/2000 11:29:10 PDT by Sandy
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | Top | Last ]


To: Sandy

The court also has allowed random drug testing of student athletes in public schools because of the national concern over drug use by youngsters.

And yet the case at hand has precisely the opposite outcome. These judges are basing their decisions not upon the law but rather their own prejudices.

17 Posted on 10/06/2000 11:36:32 PDT by edsheppa
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

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.

[ Top | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC