Pubdate: Sat, 29 Oct 2011
Source: Star-Banner, The (Ocala, FL)
Copyright: 2011 The Star-Banner
Contact:  http://www.starbanner.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1533

UNREASONABLE TESTING

A federal judge this week shot legal holes through Florida's 
requirement that all welfare applicants undergo drug testing.

We hope Gov. Rick Scott, who promoted the ill-advised tests, backs off 
the policy before more money is wasted defending it in court.

The judge temporarily suspended the drug testing requirement, faulting 
the fact that results lack confidentiality and noting that the policy 
violates constitutional protections. That's because it forces welfare 
applicants to be tested even when there are no grounds to reasonably 
suspect that they are drug users.

As the judge noted, a prior pilot project by the state found that drug 
use was not at all prevalent among welfare recipients. That suggests 
that the new drug testing policy is driven not by fact but by false 
assumptions - or is simply a backhanded way to discourage needy people 
from applying for benefits. Applicants must pay for the tests (up to 
$45) and aren't reimbursed until later, if they pass.

Formally known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the 
benefits are part of the national safety net, meant to help people in 
poverty. TANF provides cash payments (a cumulative total of four 
years' worth over a lifetime) to citizens whose incomes are extremely low.

In her ruling, Judge Mary Scriven agreed that "TANF funds should not 
be used to fund the drug trade." But if that is the only logic behind 
the blanket drug testing of welfare applicants, she indicated, then it 
would also apply to "every beneficiary of every government program."

Such blanket intrusions, she said, cannot be countenanced under the 
Fourth Amendment, which forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures."

"What the Fourth Amendment requires is that such incursions by the 
Government must be reserved for demonstrated special needs of 
government or be based on some showing of reasonable suspicion or 
probable cause," Scriven wrote.

The judge also found that the state failed to show conclusively that 
the policy, which carries substantial administrative costs, would save 
money. That point should be of interest to our bottom-line governor.

In ruling against the governor and Legislature, Scriven will likely 
stand accused of being an "activist" judge. But she stood up for 
people's rights under the Constitution.

If only our political leaders would do the same.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard R Smith Jr.