Rick Scott Scales Back His Urine Demands
In response to a Fourth Amendment lawsuit, Florida Gov. Rick Scott is retreating from his demand for the urine of state employees and job applicants. The ACLU of Florida, which brought the suit, has posted a June 10 memo (PDF) in which Scott defends his executive order while dramatically scaling it back:
While the United States Supreme Court has never ruled upon the constitutionality of a drug testing protocol identical to that mandated by Executive Order 11-58, I am confident that the drug testing called for in that Order is consistent with the Constitution, with the government's rights as an employer, and with sensible practice to ensure a safe, effective, productive, and fiscally accountable workforce…..Nonetheless, while the case is pending, it does not make sense for all agencies to move forward with the logistical issues involved in instituting the new policy. Accordingly, one agency, the Department of Corrections, shall proceed with implementing Executive Order 11-58. This will permit the legal issue to be resolved. Once that occurs, all agencies can then engage in a coordinated procurement of drug-testing services.
It sounds like Scott thinks a policy limited to the Department of Corrections is more likely to be upheld than one that covers all "agencies within the purview of the Governor," as his original executive order does. But if so, that does not mean he is then free to implement the broader drug testing mandate. In any case, it is unlikely that the narrower version will be upheld, since the Supreme Court has allowed suspicionless, government-mandated drug testing only in special circumstances. In the two cases involving adults (as opposed to high school students), the Court upheld testing of railroad employees who are involved in accidents or violate safety rules and customs agents who apply for positions that require them to carry guns or interdict drugs. The public-safety justifications for those decisions suggest that a blanket rule covering, say, all railroad workers, all ICE employees, or everyone who works for a state Department of Corrections would not pass muster. In fact, a federal judge in 2004 rejected (PDF) a drug testing requirement that applied to all employees of Florida's Department of Juvenile Justice, ruling that the policy was not tailored to address "a concrete risk of real harm." Scott, who defends his executive order by saying "the private sector does this all the time," evidently was not aware of the 2004 case or of the constitutional distinction between drug testing required by the government (which is restricted by the Fourth Amendment) and drug testing required by private employers (which is not).
[via the Drug War Chronicle]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
They put a suit on Loughner!
It took a team of 12 moms, a combined 168years of pajama-application experience, to accomplish the feat.
In response to a Fourth Amendment lawsuit, Florida Gov. Rick Scott is retreating from his demand for the urine of state employees and job applicants.
"Do you have your two gallon urine sample?"
Yes, do you want it?
"Heavens no, we just wanted to know if you were serious about wanting insurance".
Florida's a decent state (freedom-wise), but its got a hugely bloated government -- fire those muh-fuckers!
Test all the parasites.
Yep. All members of the executive, judiciary, legislature, their aides, and, what the hell, anyone lobbying them.
Yep. All members of the executive, judiciary, legislature, their aides, and, what the hell, anyone lobbying them.
You can't test lobbyists, they don't work for the state. Anyone who carries a weapon or operates machinery(including driving) for the state should be fair game. Any employee who is tasked with drug control, drug handling,and spending or collecting revenue should be tested as well.Teachers too. Assuring any government employeee who interacts with children is drug free sounds like a "compelling interest" to me
Too bad urine tests are easily faked, so any sense of safety you get is a false one.
Catch the dumb an inept ones. I'm not advocating public sector drug testing for "safety". If employers are going to test why should the parasite class be exempt? If a bureaucrat tests positive obviously the job is unnecessary if some drugged up hop-head was faking his way through it. Eliminate the position.
""Anyone who carries a weapon or operates machinery(including driving) for the state should be fair game. ""
Be careful what you ask for. People are not tested because they work for the state, there is usually a safety issue involved. Next thing you know, you will need to piss in a bottle on a regular basis to keep your CCW permit.
I'm not employed by the state nor authorized to commit violence on its behalf.
Will not matter, they are not limited to the state.
If you want to require those that do X for the state to take one, it won't be long before the state requires everyone that does X to take one.
That wouldn't fly in GA. "Permits" are on their way out in pro-2nd Amendment states.
""That wouldn't fly in GA.""
Faith in the govenment of GA?
That kind of crap can fly in any state if you force the state to require it for their employees.
The test would be meaningless because you can't test for addiction to power.
Test them. For the lulz alone.
Failing a wide-net test, at least test anyone that directly benefits from the perpetuation of drug prohibition: cops, COs, judges, prosecutors, etc.
Legislators.
Them too. Once a week, at least.
If my governor wants a urine sample from me he can have one. Just open wide and say "Aaaahhhh"...
Perhaps he simply found an alternative source of warm, nourishing urine.
Well, I always say it's better to pissed off than to be pissed on
Does anyone else's urine occasionally smell exactly like buttered popcorn?
Why, you looking for a golden shower?
I was just wondering if it only happen to me. Because it does about once a week. And I can't really find a pattern.
I fully support Rick Scott's decision to behave like a private busines. He can start with finding private, voluntary sources of revenue.
"I ain't gonna pee in no cup
'less [Rick Scott]'s gonna drink it up."
I support mandatory drug testing for anyone who is involved in the enforcement of state and federal drug laws. Judges, DA's, cops, politicians, you name it. We wouldn't want any hypocrites now, would we?
Test all public employees. If being caught with a joint is serious enough to warrant ruining some teenager's life, then failing a drug test should be serious enough to cost you your state job.
Better give Rick Scott your urine or he'll float in during the night and take it.
I have no problem with any employer requiring a drug test. Just as we should be free to smoke/snort/shoot/lick/ingest whatever we want, an employer (especially the government) should be free to filter out people who make personal lifestyle choices that could be costly for the employer.
Personally, I don't want my tax money paying the salaries of cops, bus drivers, army grunts, etc. who are high.
You make your choices, your employer gets to make his.
Apparently the rigorous interviews just don't weed out enough bad candidates.
Not sure how I feel. Drug testing is wrong, but in this case the target of the drug testing have no problem inflicting it on young people in schools with little to no cause.
Since the chances of the executive branch doing anything but advocate for more student drug testing is virtually nonexistent, isn't it fair to demand they be subjected to those same tests?
Just a wee sample . . .
Urine a lot of trouble, boy . . .
We picked a wiener (no, sounds like another joke)