ACLU Challenges Florida’s Mandatory Drug Tests For Housing

[IceHogsFan]

I had not heard of this law in Florida... Hell Yeah! About time a state took a stand.



ACLU Challenges Florida’s Mandatory Drug Tests for Temporary Assistance Recipients

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (ACLUFL) today announced it filed suit in federal court seeking to halt implementation of Florida’s new law mandating drug testing of applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program without suspicion of drug use.



The suit, filed Tuesday, September 6, 2011 in federal court in the Middle District of Florida, is on behalf of Luis Lebron, a 35 year-old Orlando resident, Navy veteran and full time University of Central Florida student. Lebron is a single father who applied for temporary assistance in July, 2011, to support his 4 year-old son. He meets all the criteria for assistance but has refused to waive his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and submit to the newly required drug test.



“I served my country, I’m in school finishing my education and trying to take care of my son,” Lebron said. “It’s insulting and degrading that people think I’m using drugs just because I need a little help to take care of my family while I finish up my education.”



In addition to caring for his son, Lebron is the sole caregiver for his disabled mother. He worked in accounting and payroll services in the United States Navy and held several private sector jobs in accounting and financial services before returning to school where he expects to graduate in December, 2011 with a degree in accounting.



The new drug testing law, state Statute 414.0652 (formerly 2011 House Bill 353), requires TANF applicants to submit to and pass a urine test for drug use before receiving assistance. The law also requires applicants to pay for the tests first (about $30-$35) and wait to be reimbursed by the state should they pass. A positive drug test will result in loss of benefits for one year. The law was passed on May 5, 2011, signed by Governor Rick Scott on May 31, 2011 and took effect July 1, 2011.



“This law violates more than the rights guaranteed by our Constitution – it violates basic American dignity and fairness by assuming that everyone who needs help is a lazy drug abuser,” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLUFL. “Ugly, disproven stereotypes make bad laws.”



http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=24400

 

[mikita's helmet]

Unless there's probable cause, you don't give up your Contstitutional protection to be free from unreasonable searches just because you're poor.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

**** the ACLU and the horse they rode in on (wait..........that's beastiality....forget the horse, just **** the ACLU)

 

[jaxhawksfan]

"“This law violates more than the rights guaranteed by our Constitution – it violates basic American dignity and fairness by assuming that everyone who needs help is a lazy drug abuser,” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLUFL. “Ugly, disproven stereotypes make bad laws.”



What's the phrase.....oh yeah, "trust, but verify." Nobody is assuming anything, they are just checking.

 

[MassHavoc]

If Florida only tested those with suspicion they'd be accused of profiling.



I'm all for drug testing in any large state or federally funded programs that give considerable tax dollars out regardless of what the focus of the funding is for.

 

[mikita's helmet]

If Florida only tested those with suspicion they'd be accused of profiling.

It depends on what you mean by "suspicion." If they suspected every person because they were poor, or black, or latino or white, then yeah, that's profiling.



If they're interviewing folks that have glassy or red eyes, or reeks of ganja or are acting intoxicated/high, etc,, then they have probable cause and can force the person to undergo a UA. If, however, they come in for their interview and appear normal, the state has no probable cause and they shouldn't be forced to pee in a bottle. It's unconstitutional.

 

[MassHavoc]

I don't understand why people are so uptight about drug tests. Why is it so intrusive? All it does is prove you aren't on drugs, it's not like someone is full body scanning you and probing your asshole because you want to get on a plane. If you want a handout be prepared to prove you deserve it. Why is this all of a sudden a poor, race, immigration issue?

 

[klemmer]

It depends on what you mean by "suspicion." If they suspected every person because they were poor, or black, or latino or white, then yeah, that's profiling.



If they're interviewing folks that have glassy or red eyes, or reeks of ganja or are acting intoxicated/high, etc,, then they have probable cause and can force the person to undergo a UA. If, however, they come in for their interview and appear normal, the state has no probable cause and they shouldn't be forced to pee in a bottle. It's unconstitutional.

When my kids come to me for a loan, I want to know what it's for and when (if?) I'll get paid back.



This is no different. Want to live on my dime? Try to get a job and stay clean.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

I'm all for helping people when they need some help. But when someone is asking for taxpayer dollars don't the circumstances change ? IE might have to prove they're not using before you get taxpayer $ to possibly go buy more dope.





OK rip away bleeding hearts!



Its not about the color of skin or where you are from!! Must we always play the race card?

 

[LordKOTL]

I'd have less of a problem with this if it wasn't so easy to get a false positive from innoculous substances. I know at my company they have to do mandatory drug testing to work on any federal contracts, and the test clearly states things you should not come in contact with prior to the t4est to reduce the chance of a false positive.



I do think, though that any time you ask for a handout you are limited to the subjects and conditions of said help, and if that is a piss test then do so. the ACLU should focus on something more necessary, like the TSA.

 

[mikita's helmet]

When my kids come to me for a loan, I want to know what it's for and when (if?) I'll get paid back.



This is no different. Want to live on my dime? Try to get a job and stay clean.

The difference is that you're a private citizen, Florida is the governemnt.



The constitution protects us from the government - not the private sector - conducting unreasonable searches without probable cause.



If Florida wants to stop the program because they can't conduct UAs on the applicants, I see no problem with that. But, if they want to collect UAs on applicants without probable cause, I expect that a Federal court will rule that to be unconstitutional.

 

[MassHavoc]

The difference is that you're a private citizen, Florida is the governemnt.



The constitution protects us from the government - not the private sector - conducting unreasonable searches without probable cause.



If Florida wants to stop the program because they can't conduct UAs on the applicants, I see no problem with that. But, if they want to collect UAs on applicants without probable cause, I expect that a Federal court will rule that to be unconstitutional.

And I don't see this as an unreasonable search. I see it as if you want to be given a handout, you should prove that you mean the reasonable expectations? Why is it unreasonable to expect people to be drug free if they would like to be given handouts by the government? If you want something for nothing, then you have to agree to prove that you aren't breaking any laws. Seems reasonable? When I went on unemployment they didn't test me for drugs, and thinking about it I wouldn't have objected.

 

[mikita's helmet]

Why is it unreasonable to expect people to be drug free if they would like to be given handouts by the government?

Why is it reasonable to assume they're using drugs?

 

[MassHavoc]

Why is it reasonable to assume they're using drugs?

Because, through lot's and lot's of research it's been found that among lower income families there is a higher prevalence of drug use when compared to the US population.



Here is an excerpt that is geared more toward "Prevalence of Substance Use Among Racial & Ethnic Subgroups in the U.S." but you can still understand the concept.

·Sociodemographic differences in substance use among and within racial/ethnic subgroups. Sociodemographic differences among racial/ethnic subgroups explain, at least in part, the subgroups' different prevalences of substance use, alcohol dependence, and need for illicit drug abuse treatment. For example, relative to the total U.S. population, individuals in households with low family income have a high prevalence of past-year use of any illicit drug, and the percentage of population with low family income is higher among Mexicans, non-Hispanic blacks, and Puerto Ricans than in the total U.S. population (Chapter 3). Thus, family income differences partially account for the relatively high prevalences of illicit drug use among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and non-Hispanic blacks. Yet none of the sociodemographic variables that are introduced in our analyses, including region, population density, language of interview, family income, health insurance coverage, receipt of welfare, educational attainment, school dropout status, marital status, employment status, and number of children, fully accounts for racial/ethnic differences in substance use (Chapter 5). We also show that, regardless of racial/ethnic subgroup, relatively high prevalences of illicit drug use are found among individuals who reside in the West; reside in metropolitan areas with populations greater than 1 million; would use English rather than Spanish in the NHSDA interview; lack health insurance coverage; are unemployed; have 9 to 11 years of schooling; or have never been married. Moreover, regardless of racial/ethnic subgroup, adolescents who dropped out of school or who reside in households with fewer than two biological parents have relatively high prevalences of past-year use of cigarettes, alcohol, and illicit drugs (Chapter 5).

http://oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/ethnic/ethn1006.htm



It's been studied for years and found that in low income families and areas, there is a higher prevalence of drug use and abuse, so I would say that's your reasonable expectation.

 

[klemmer]

It's been studied for years and found that in low income families and areas, there is a higher prevalence of drug use and abuse, so I would say that's your reasonable expectation.

Cool. If I want to do some LSD and can't afford it that week, i go without. They can do the same and spend their money to cover their responsibilities.

 

[mikita's helmet]

It's been studied for years and found that in low income families and areas, there is a higher prevalence of drug use and abuse, so I would say that's your reasonable expectation.

That's profiling.



The Constitution protects individuals, not groups, from unreasonable searches.



If town A has more incidents of DUI/DWIs and town B has lower incidents, should the government be allowed make someone in town A who never drinks take a breathalizer test while not forcing even the drinkers in town B to test, because of their low incidence of DUI/DWIs?

 

[winos5]

I want to practice my profession in the US. The government insists I submit my fingerprints, transcripts, and credentials to verify I'm qualified to do that and I am who I say I am and in return they allow me to practice. I also get to do the same for whatever state I live in. If I can do all that without getting butt hurt and running to the ACLU about illegal search and seizure as well as invasion of my privacy under the guise of public safety, I have no problem requiring a drug test for welfare recipients.



Just my 2 cents.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

The difference is that you're a private citizen, Florida is the governemnt.



The constitution protects us from the government - not the private sector - conducting unreasonable searches without probable cause.



If Florida wants to stop the program because they can't conduct UAs on the applicants, I see no problem with that. But, if they want to collect UAs on applicants without probable cause, I expect that a Federal court will rule that to be unconstitutional.

The "probable cause" is they want taxpayers money.

 

[klemmer]

The "probable cause" is they want taxpayers money.

Bingo!

 

[MassHavoc]

The "probable cause" is they want taxpayers money.

Yeah, you beat me too it. It's not apples to apples. The people in those towns aren't looking for handouts. If the goverment started a free car insurance program I would expect people in both those town to take drug tests. This isn't about profiling, or impeding peoples rights, it's about the proper use of mine, and all taxpayers money. It's about making sure that it is helping the people in the program who are responsible enough to be helped. It's about trying to get the most return out of the tax dollars by making sure it goes to the most deserving people. Oh and by the way.... if they don't want to take part in the program they don't have to take the drug test. So I would say it's not impeding on their rights at all. No one is forcing them to take a piss test.



If they were lining everyone up in the neighborhoods and forcing everyone to get a drug test then I'd say you have a point, but this is all predicated on acceptance into a government funded program where you are the recipient of tax dollars that are not yours. I think I have a right to know that my taxes are going toward people who aren't wasting my money on drugs or getting benefits because of the situation they are in from choices they have made.