Judge: Florida worker drug testing unconstitutional POLL

Should Floridians applying for welfare benefits be required to take a drug test?

See the results »

View previous polls »

— A Miami federal judge has declared that Gov. Rick Scott's order requiring drug testing for state workers is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro ruled Thursday that blanket testing of some 85,000 workers violates the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling could eventually have an impact on a new state law also permitting random worker drug testing.

Scott's order was challenged by a labor union representing government workers and the American Civil Liberties Union. They contended that drug testing should only be done if there is a suspected problem and in safety-related and high-risk jobs.

Lawyers for the governor contend that objecting workers are free to quit and job applicants could choose to find employment elsewhere.

Scott suspended the order in June because of the lawsuit.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Topics

Related Stories

Comments » 62

mr_1_term_proposition writes:

The company I work for has random drug tests and it doesn't bother me whatsoever. I do not do drugs so I will never get caught with a dirty drug test.

The judge appears to be hiding something ..........maybe a drug habbit?

straighttalkinnaples writes:

Many job applicants must submit to a drug test prior to employment with most companies.

Why isn't this considered unreasonable search and seizure and unconstitutional?

Uh...could it be because the Judge needs the union vote for reelection?

alexia6ciula writes:

in response to straighttalkinnaples:

Many job applicants must submit to a drug test prior to employment with most companies.

Why isn't this considered unreasonable search and seizure and unconstitutional?

Uh...could it be because the Judge needs the union vote for reelection?

Judge junky

tried_n_true writes:

Republicans being unconstitutional ?
That's what hypocrites do....
Never trust a Republican.

TheyPavedParadise2 writes:

Nice, political decisions to get the union vote.
So we should now be worried that government workers could be impaired when they are making important decisions, doing paperwork, operating heavy equipment, operating cars and buses, guarding prisoners, or watching airplanes land?
I guess the unions are controlling what is constitutional now. Next it will be guns.

rogallo writes:

If you don't do drugs..why should it bother you ???

DinNaples writes:

I wonder what the judge considered "unreasonable"? It seems that drug use on the job, any job, is definitely not an allowable situation.

Ruger writes:

Why doesn't the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures apply to airports and the TSA?

Does this mean that all Drug Tests are now illegal???

swfl_ff writes:

I don't quit understand how this is unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional for the state to conduct drug tests then why are other government agencies and private sector employers free to conduct drug tests?

Apply for any job at the City of Naples, Collier County Government, CCSO, Collier County School System, any of the county constitutional offices or any of the local fire districts and guess what one of the first things that need to be done...a drug test. All these agencies also hold the right to drug test any of their existing employees with cause. And in many cases these jobs are covered by various union contracts so that is not an issue.

I am not a big supporter of old Dirty Dick but I do feel he is within he rights as an employer to assure that his employees are drug free.

goodview writes:

Why should someone get welfare if they can afford to do drugs or for that matter drink alcohol. If times are that tough you have to rely on someone else to feed you then you sure has heck shouldn't be useing drugs or booze. Won't even go into soda, cell phones,cable TV and other items people think are neccesities.

upeoplrmean writes:

my problem with this is that he ran on 'less govt interference' and slashing costs etc. Well he took away 3% of state employees pay by making them now contribute that to their retirement but then he does this drug program which will cost money to implement! He's a loser in my opinion!!

mr_1_term_proposition writes:

in response to ISPEAKFORGOD:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Spank you very much miss perfection.

angrytxpyr writes:

DUH DUH DUH!!!! Who didn't see this comingalong with all the other crap Icky Rick has pulled but the one issue that he yelled from day one that he would bring Arizona style Immigration reform to Florida seems to have disappeared from his rhetoric. OOPPPSSS!!! Looks like the Supreme Court my give the green light to Arizona and here our Dismanteller and Thief seems to have forgotten to implement his immigration policy as promised. I guess he wanted get all the really fun stuff like firing people and drug testing(wasn't his wife gonna make a boat load of cash with that) and giving Tom(quiter)Grady a cushy do nothing job and lets not forget all the good work Dudley got get in at Edison Community College. YeH YEH I'm rambling on and on but I am just busting at the seems over all the TAXPAYER money and jobs this State has been bleeding since Icky Rick took delivery of his newly purchased Governors throne... Hey Rick give Trey Radel a call and ask him how good it was for his campaign to play s----- internet games, maybe you could try it too.

DonkeyWhispererakaDuh_novan writes:

in response to upeoplrmean:

my problem with this is that he ran on 'less govt interference' and slashing costs etc. Well he took away 3% of state employees pay by making them now contribute that to their retirement but then he does this drug program which will cost money to implement! He's a loser in my opinion!!

Where does that 3% go? THEIR Retirement fund! So he is not really taking anything from them.

JunkYardDog_1 (Inactive) writes:

If this is unconstitutional, what could be next? The unconstitutional mandate of Obama care?

Never trust a democratic administration that forces you to by a product or service.

JunkYardDog_1 (Inactive) writes:

buy

22FOXTROT writes:

Now long does it take to pee in a bottle?

If you have illegal drugs in your system, I can see where it would be an issue.

If you legalize pot, I dont think the whiz test of government employees would be an issue. A lot of potheads would be relieved, I am sure.

swfl_ff writes:

in response to DonkeyWhispererakaDuh_novan:

Where does that 3% go? THEIR Retirement fund! So he is not really taking anything from them.

Actually it does NOT go into the state retirement fund. If it did I think most would be OK with it. But that 3% goes directly into the state's general fund. It is doing NOTHING for the retirement funds.

shlblvr writes:

in response to DonkeyWhispererakaDuh_novan:

Where does that 3% go? THEIR Retirement fund! So he is not really taking anything from them.

Just so you know that 3 percent did not go into the retirement fund. it went into the general budget to shore up deficite get your facts straight.

TheyPavedParadise2 writes:

in response to swfl_ff:

Actually it does NOT go into the state retirement fund. If it did I think most would be OK with it. But that 3% goes directly into the state's general fund. It is doing NOTHING for the retirement funds.

Actually the money is directly connected to the person who pays it in. It is in the state retirement fund.

rogallo writes:

Unreal !

upeoplrmean writes:

in response to DonkeyWhispererakaDuh_novan:

Where does that 3% go? THEIR Retirement fund! So he is not really taking anything from them.

yes he did - when they signed on the state was contributing and now they are forced to - whether they want to or not. State jobs pay WAY less than private sector so if people take them based on the retirement and then he takes it away - that's the problem and that is why he was sued over that. Now he wants to spend taxpayer money for random drug testing. I agree with other posters that if there is suspicion someone is using drugs than go ahead and test them but to watse our money on random testing... why? If the state is so broke he had to take 3% from the workers how can he afford this???

GATORBAIT writes:

I wonder how many of you have a "Protect the Constitution" bumper sticker on you car but at the same time you're cool with illegal search and seizure. Do you just like the parts that you agree with?

djmc831 writes:

in response to goodview:

Why should someone get welfare if they can afford to do drugs or for that matter drink alcohol. If times are that tough you have to rely on someone else to feed you then you sure has heck shouldn't be useing drugs or booze. Won't even go into soda, cell phones,cable TV and other items people think are neccesities.

and what does this have to do with the article?

OP writes:

Unions hate America

my-opinion writes:

"Illegal search and seizure" includes your body! Not only are drug tests wrong so are traffic stops and airport security gropings.

Coastal writes:

Employers add just 120,000 jobs; lowest since October.

napleschik writes:

in response to GATORBAIT:

I wonder how many of you have a "Protect the Constitution" bumper sticker on you car but at the same time you're cool with illegal search and seizure. Do you just like the parts that you agree with?

What do you think is illegal about this? Employment in Florida is at-will. Employers have many ways to separate. Most large companies that have employment contracts include random testing. If you want the job, you are making a contract with the employer to protect all other employees and customers against bad behavior or s----- mistakes you may make.
Let's go another step here. How about someone drives your business vehicle, gets stoned or drunk and crashes a school bus. Several children die and lawsuits that overcome your liability umbrella ensue. The company is closed, several people lose their job, and your home and belongings are attached. Because you knew the person was a stoner and legally couldn't test them you and everyone else lose.
Big time.
In the case of the government which in many cases is self insured the attorneys go for the big bucks, people lose their job and the deficit gets bigger, we all pay more taxes and people get less services. But it's the liberal way.
Just another political ploy to attack the Governor.

napleschik writes:

in response to my-opinion:

"Illegal search and seizure" includes your body! Not only are drug tests wrong so are traffic stops and airport security gropings.

Then don't drive or fly. It isn't your constitutional right or guarantee. As a taxpayer and a legal citizen I expect the government to protect me against people like you.

napleschik writes:

Desperado.....why don't you come to your senses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BwOXl...

napleschik writes:

in response to ISPEAKFORGOD:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

No longer the same unions. Workers rights were paramount. What happens in a GM plant when a machine breaks? The operator stops work, calls the supervisor, who calls the repair guy and the union shop steward who has to approve the entire process. A simple repair takes 4 people and the machine could be down for hours. It a Toyota plant, the operator calls the repair guy and helps him fix it. They both make good money and it's called productivity.
GM was bailed out and now the unions own 39% of the company.
Was that the mission?

Coastal writes:

Unions exist to force employers to compensate employees more than they are worth.

KR writes:

Another kool aid drinking obama socialist judge! Remember to vote the left wing liberals out in November!

Colorado (Inactive) writes:

in response to TheyPavedParadise2:

Nice, political decisions to get the union vote.
So we should now be worried that government workers could be impaired when they are making important decisions, doing paperwork, operating heavy equipment, operating cars and buses, guarding prisoners, or watching airplanes land?
I guess the unions are controlling what is constitutional now. Next it will be guns.

That's a very good idea. Let's start working on that. Controlling guns---a very good idea.

sjmill writes:

in response to upeoplrmean:

my problem with this is that he ran on 'less govt interference' and slashing costs etc. Well he took away 3% of state employees pay by making them now contribute that to their retirement but then he does this drug program which will cost money to implement! He's a loser in my opinion!!

A lot of companies, states and universities have been implementing mandatory retirement contributions. Mine did - and it was more than 3%. It's not a big deal. They are still getting the pay but in the form of a retirement benefit.

NewsAngel writes:

The problem with this random drug test law is that the legislators who created the law and passed it for the governor to sign, exempted themselves from the law. If all state workers must submit to the testing so should the lawmakers who work for us. After all, shouldn't the people making laws be sober too?

TheyPavedParadise2 writes:

in response to NewsAngel:

The problem with this random drug test law is that the legislators who created the law and passed it for the governor to sign, exempted themselves from the law. If all state workers must submit to the testing so should the lawmakers who work for us. After all, shouldn't the people making laws be sober too?

Agreed.

staghorn writes:

never trust a republican©

© = "All rights reserved" is a phrase that originated in copyright law as part of copyright notices. It indicates that the copyright holder reserves, or holds for their own use, all the rights provided by copyright law, such as distribution, performance, and creation of derivative works; that is, they have not waived any such right.

Patton writes:

in response to mr_1_term_proposition:

The company I work for has random drug tests and it doesn't bother me whatsoever. I do not do drugs so I will never get caught with a dirty drug test.

The judge appears to be hiding something ..........maybe a drug habbit?

Could be, but you sure don't hide your inability to spell.

wonderful (Inactive) writes:

in response to ISPEAKFORGOD:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

And then they went bad. Just like the dims, eh?

Even carter likes Mitt!

wonderful (Inactive) writes:

in response to napleschik:

No longer the same unions. Workers rights were paramount. What happens in a GM plant when a machine breaks? The operator stops work, calls the supervisor, who calls the repair guy and the union shop steward who has to approve the entire process. A simple repair takes 4 people and the machine could be down for hours. It a Toyota plant, the operator calls the repair guy and helps him fix it. They both make good money and it's called productivity.
GM was bailed out and now the unions own 39% of the company.
Was that the mission?

Straight on chick!

They wanted me to put on 8 tire pressure sticker labels on the driver's door in one day and then pressed for ten after the bailout.

I fooled them and put them on the passenger doors and the entire units was recalled!

Now that's where i'm coming from!

G-----

napleschik writes:

in response to ISPEAKFORGOD:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Well,
Not that I need to tell you, but many of my relatives work and have worked on both sides of the issue. You spout a typical answer attacking this as anti-american. All of the other brands in the US that have been winning the awards for quality are making the big boys change in a positive way. Look at Chrysler, making money again. Let us not forget that Fiat owns most of Chrysler now and the taxpayers have yet to be paid completely.
You can absolutely blame the unions for not backing off on years of concessions. When times were good no one questioned the raises. Now when the average automaker makes $73.00 per hour in salary and bennies. They will crash again, or Fiat will nuke the union. Wanna bet what happens?
So, When the autoworkers are drinking and smoking dope at the union hall(CNN)(FOX) and it actually takes 4 people to get repairs and service done in the plant. It's actually in the contract.

SNOWBlRD27 (Inactive) writes:

Thank you Rick Scott! I'll be voting for you again!

silverback writes:

in response to tried_n_true:

Republicans being unconstitutional ?
That's what hypocrites do....
Never trust a Republican.

But they are more trustworthy than druggies!

silverback writes:

in response to ISPEAKFORGOD:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

You don't speak for any one responsible. Continue correcting spelling and leave the intelligent commenting to the straight people.

itmattershere writes:

Shouldn't be any drug testing, unless they can prove or suspect your under the influence at the time. What you do on your own time is your business. It is all unconstitutional. Oh yeah, thank your buddy Reagan for this one.

Ruger writes:

in response to ISPEAKFORGOD:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

LOL!!

If you were really an Independent you would have stated the truth, corrupt Democrats are much worse than Republicans.

What a tool you are!!

garyOfTheGulf writes:

Another Worthless Judge!!!

wrightconnection writes:

I just got drug tested so I could continue to get the back pain medication I've been getting for the past 11 yrs. I had to pay $196.00 for this s----- test. THANKS RICK SCOTT YOU FRIGGIN CROOK!!!!!!!!!

unfatcat writes:

Employers, including taxpayers, do not pay individuals for 24-hr shifts daily. Employees have an afterwork off-the-clock life. What they do with their own time is their business. If serious drugs are a problem, then one day, it will come to haunt the individual; but unless one is smoking joints on the employer's property, this is unconstitutional. The same could be said for those who engage in not hiring smokers. It is done of their own time, not company time, and it's is legal. Constitional lawsuits will likely come from all of these kinds of activities by employers, who act like they own people now. Owning someone or owning someone's time without pay is a civil rights issue.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features