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.