ACLU Challenges Florida’s Mandatory Drug Tests For Housing

[winos5]

If it's a private employer it's fine. Private employers are not bound by the Constitution.

They're not? THen why all the civil lawsuits for violating employee rights, sexual harrassment, unsafe work place ect....

 

[R K]

I also have to submit BAT concurently with the urine sample at one employer.

Unfortunately employers can do as they please. Unless of course the Government is the employer. Then you might have an argument. I've done it twice for employment but I never agreed with the Policy UNLESS the employment was putting other citizens life/limb/heath in question.

 

[R K]

A person is more likely to cheat the system if they smoke dope? But if you drink alcohol you are unlikely to cheat any system?



So the answer would be for the people on welfare who like to get their bubble on......quit smoking dope and just use the money on alcohol!

Exactly. It's the Hypocrisy of the system. There is a double standard. Which is why I questioned the drinking of those for this. I think if you put the death's/issued of alcohol users, verses "drug addicts" most would be very surprise. Why, because the Alcohol is legal.



Which as I said brings up another huge can of worms. With the economy the way it is not everyone seeking federal/state financial support are drug addicts. So it also brings up the point of discrimination.



I know **** the whole because of the few.

 

[MassHavoc]

I skipped a few pages of the mindless wandering so I may have missed it. But I still haven't seen anyone prove that they are forcing these people to take a drug test. If the don't want to take the drug test they don't have to. Period. No rights infringed on.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

There's still not probable cause for any indivudual beng asked to produce documents. Have a broke tail light, yes. Car weaving down the road, yes. Following the rules of the road while driving home from 7/11, no.



Consider this scenario. The person behind you in a checkpoint, who looks perfectly normal to you, has an illegal firearm in his car's trunk. The police don't know this, you don't know. Can they look in your trunk, now?

No. The check point isnt there to search for illegal fire arms. it is simply there to verify you have your license and insurance as you are required to have. As I stated before, IMO, just not having your license and insurance is not probable cause to search any farther then that, give the ticket, let them go.





that was cool...somehow copied your quote twice.....no idea how the **** i did that!!!!!!!

 

[dlrob315]

We are questioning whether or not it is unconstitutional to ask!

 

[LordKOTL]

After skimming over the 4th amendment and related cases--it seems that the 4th amendment only applies to criminal cases, and not civil cases--at least in this context. Thus, there is no precedent on whether or not a fedeal program--be it assistance, welfare, or work (sensitive information or not) voilates the 4th amendment with a mandatory drug screen with respect to contingency upon recieving said benefits or work--when and only when the issue is only whether or not assitance or work is granted or denied based on the drug screen outcome.



Now, if the results of said screen were the basis of criminal charges, then it could be construed as a direct violation. If the fine print says that the results of the drug screen can be used as evidence for criminal proceedings, then it most certainly IS a direct 4th amendment violation.



I think that this will go up in the courts because of the nebulous nature. I think based on the wordage I read, that the outcome should be that to receive employment or assitance from the government, it is legal for them to require a drug test tht your benefits or employment are contingent upon, however, the results of that test cannot be used in criminal proceedings.



Now, as for public schools and roads, yes, I do find it a violation of the 4th amendment for ranom screenings--especially if it leads to criminal charges. Same with the TSA and the like.

 

[mikita's helmet]

that was cool...somehow copied your quote twice.....no idea how the **** i did that!!!!!!!

Because it was important.

Actually, sometimes my ipad will copy a quote more than once.

 

[MassHavoc]

Because it was important.

Actually, sometimes my ipad will copy a quote more than once.

If you hit the quote button it's quotes it at the bottom, if you hit it a second time it will repeat it. So the number of times you are quoted depends on how many times you hit the button, it will keep pasting the quote in the reply field.

Because it was important.

Actually, sometimes my ipad will copy a quote more than once.

Because it was important.

Actually, sometimes my ipad will copy a quote more than once.

Because it was important.

Actually, sometimes my ipad will copy a quote more than once.

Because it was important.

Actually, sometimes my ipad will copy a quote more than once.

Mostly I just thought it would be funny to see that emoticon repeated.

 

[dlrob315]

If you hit the quote button it's quotes it at the bottom, if you hit it a second time it will repeat it. So the number of times you are quoted depends on how many times you hit the button, it will keep pasting the quote in the reply field.











Mostly I just thought it would be funny to see that emoticon repeated.

Because it was important.

Actually, sometimes my ipad will copy a quote more than once.

After skimming over the 4th amendment and related cases--it seems that the 4th amendment only applies to criminal cases, and not civil cases--at least in this context. Thus, there is no precedent on whether or not a fedeal program--be it assistance, welfare, or work (sensitive information or not) voilates the 4th amendment with a mandatory drug screen with respect to contingency upon recieving said benefits or work--when and only when the issue is only whether or not assitance or work is granted or denied based on the drug screen outcome.



Now, if the results of said screen were the basis of criminal charges, then it could be construed as a direct violation. If the fine print says that the results of the drug screen can be used as evidence for criminal proceedings, then it most certainly IS a direct 4th amendment violation.



I think that this will go up in the courts because of the nebulous nature. I think based on the wordage I read, that the outcome should be that to receive employment or assitance from the government, it is legal for them to require a drug test tht your benefits or employment are contingent upon, however, the results of that test cannot be used in criminal proceedings.



Now, as for public schools and roads, yes, I do find it a violation of the 4th amendment for ranom screenings--especially if it leads to criminal charges. Same with the TSA and the like.

We are questioning whether or not it is unconstitutional to ask!

So it is a second way to multiquote......did not know that!

 

[MassHavoc]

Correct, Multiquote is a way to quote across threads, forums, and pages of threads. You can use multiquote to essentially paste a post to a clipboard, and put it in any thread. Or multiple posts from any threads to that clipboard and past them all in one place.



Quote just pastes them to the bottom reply section. They are both neat little features that didn't work as well before.

 

[R K]

Correct, Multiquote is a way to quote across threads, forums, and pages of threads. You can use multiquote to essentially paste a post to a clipboard, and put it in any thread. Or multiple posts from any threads to that clipboard and past them all in one place.



Quote just pastes them to the bottom reply section. They are both neat little features that didn't work as well before.

Get back to the topic! Stick to the subject Mr. Moderator!

 

[Tater]

Get back to the topic! Stick to the subject Mr. Moderator!

 

[winos5]

After skimming over the 4th amendment and related cases--it seems that the 4th amendment only applies to criminal cases, and not civil cases--at least in this context. Thus, there is no precedent on whether or not a fedeal program--be it assistance, welfare, or work (sensitive information or not) voilates the 4th amendment with a mandatory drug screen with respect to contingency upon recieving said benefits or work--when and only when the issue is only whether or not assitance or work is granted or denied based on the drug screen outcome.



Now, if the results of said screen were the basis of criminal charges, then it could be construed as a direct violation. If the fine print says that the results of the drug screen can be used as evidence for criminal proceedings, then it most certainly IS a direct 4th amendment violation.



I think that this will go up in the courts because of the nebulous nature. I think based on the wordage I read, that the outcome should be that to receive employment or assitance from the government, it is legal for them to require a drug test tht your benefits or employment are contingent upon, however, the results of that test cannot be used in criminal proceedings.



Now, as for public schools and roads, yes, I do find it a violation of the 4th amendment for ranom screenings--especially if it leads to criminal charges. Same with the TSA and the like.

Are you a constitutional scholar/lawyer or did you sleep at a Holiday Inn last night?

 

[R K]

I'm ashamed, you forgot the "express".



Mikita is the only Lawyer. Questioned by an accountant, assisted by a sales person. hmmm

 

[winos5]

Ah... the melting pot that is Indianheadnation. At least we all agree that the puck can't drop soon enough!

 

[R K]

Lets totally whack the thread this as been the longest off season in YEARS!!!! DROP THE PUCK!





<everyone get's a drug test first though> <and must pay for it out of their pocket>

 

[IceHogsFan]

Lets totally whack the thread this as been the longest off season in YEARS!!!! DROP THE PUCK!





<everyone get's a drug test first though> <and must pay for it out of their pocket>

But if you are clean your membership dues here for the year are waived.

Did I miss any that were discussed in this thread?

 

[mikita's helmet]

After skimming over the 4th amendment and related cases--it seems that the 4th amendment only applies to criminal cases, and not civil cases--at least in this context.

Actually, the type of case we're discussing here is known as "suspicionless drug testing." In this line of cases, the drug testing is "imposed by law and enforced by state officials, [and] effects a search within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments." Chandler v. Miller,117 S. Ct. 1295 (1997). Thus, any drug test is a search per se as defined by the Fourth Amendment. Id. Once the Court finds a search it then must determine if such a search was reasonable balanced against the right to privacy of the individual being tested.



So far the US Supreme Court has only carved two 'special needs" exceptions in which a suspicionless drug test is not unconstitutional (federal employees whose jobs involve public safety and school athletes). See Skinner v. Railway Labor Exec. Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 627 (1989) ("[T]he expectations of privacy of covered employees are diminished by reason of their participation in an industry that is regulated pervasively to ensure safety."). "41 See National Treas.Emp. Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 672 (1989) ("We think Customs employees who are directly involved in the interdiction of illegal drugs or who are required to carry firearms in the line of duty likewise have a diminished expectation of privacy."). See Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 657 (1995) ("There is an additional respect in which school athletes have a reduced expectation of privacy. By choosing to 'go out for the team,' they voluntarily subject themselves to a degree of regulation even higher than that imposed on students generally.").



On the other hand, the Supreme Court found a Georgia statute requiring "candidates for designated state offices to certify that they have taken a drug test and that the test result was negative" unconstitutional. See Chandler v. Miller,117 S. Ct. 1295 (1997).



So unless, or until, the Court carves a new "special needs" exception into their "suspicionless drug testing" line of cases, what the state of Florida is doing is unconstitutional. Here's a copy of the complaint filed by Luis Lebron, in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida. against David Wilkins, the Secretary of Florida's Dept. of Childrens & Families.



http://www.scribd.co...en-amp-Families

 

[mikita's helmet]

They're not? Then why all the civil lawsuits for violating employee rights, sexual harrassment, unsafe work place ect....

My quote had to do with the 4th Amendment's searches & seizures.