Drug Testing

Federal Appeals Court Nixes Blanket Drug Screening of State College Students

The decision is a welcome departure from a tendency to sacrifice privacy on the altar of a drug-free society.

|

Missouri Community College Association

Last week a federal appeals court ruled that requiring incoming students at a state college to surrender their urine for drug testing violates the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. The decision is a welcome departure from a body of case law that usually defers to the government's perception of "special needs" that supposedly justify analyzing people's bodily fluids without a warrant or any evidence that they pose a threat to public safety.

Linn State Technical College, now known as the State Technical College of Missouri, started demanding incoming students' urine in 2011 because members of its advisory council thought it was a good idea, not because there was any reason to believe the school had any special drug-related safety problems. "Accidents are not common at Linn State, and the college has not attributed any accidents to student drug use," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit notes in its decision upholding a federal judge's injunction against the college's drug testing program. "Linn State had no reason to believe that it had a student drug-use problem greater than any other college's."

But better safe than sorry, right? Although that sort of reasoning seems to prevail more often than not in drug testing cases, the 8th Circuit ruled that a general interest in discouraging drug use does not justify suspicionless urinalysis by government agencies. The majority opinion, written by Roger Wollman and joined by eight other judges, emphasizes that Linn State's drug testing requirement applied to all students, whether or not they were enrolled in "safety-sensitive" programs such as aviation maintenance or industrial electricity. Why should a student learning design drafting have to pass a drug test, Wollman wonders, when "the district court found that, based on Linn State's evidence, the greatest danger the program presented was 'that a student might accidentally trip and fall while navigating uneven ground during a site visit'"?

The 8th Circuit says the lack of category-specific safety concerns distinguishes this case from Supreme Court decisions upholding drug testing of railway workers after accidents and people seeking U.S. Customs positions that involve carrying guns or interdicting drugs. The appeals court adds that adults attending a college with no special history of drug problems are constitutionally distinct from minors attending high schools facing a real or perceived substance abuse "crisis," a context in which the Supreme Court has approved testing of all students participating in sports or other competitive extracurricular programs. "Linn State's drug testing policy was not developed in response to any crisis," the court notes. "Most significantly, Linn State's students are not children committed to the temporary custody of the state."

The two judges who dissented from the decision, by contrast, argue that a drug problem confronting society in general is enough to justify an indiscriminate drug testing program like Linn State's. C. Arlen Beam, joined by James Loken, describes the Supreme Court's rulings in this area as "generally validating the suspicionless drug testing and screening being carried on by America's government, business, service and educational institutions, saying there is no dispute, 'nor can there be doubt, that [illicit] drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society today.'" Beam cites the recent surgeon general's report on drug addiction, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016, and the large share of criminal cases in the 8th Circuit that involve drug offenses (34 percent) as evidence that Linn State faces "substantial health, safety and security problems, all of which are specifically ameliorated by the College's well-conceived drug-testing and screening program."

Beam seems almost outraged by the American Civil Liberties Union's involvement in challenging Linn State's policy. He complains that "the organization, with regularity, aligns itself in opposition to drug testing and screening in most, if not every, conceivable situation that arises, especially when educational endeavors are at stake, such as at Linn State." He adds that "my search of its public emanations fails to identify even one piece of ACLU-sponsored litigation that supports drug testing and screening."

Maybe that's because the ACLU sees its mission as protecting constitutional rights rather than facilitating their violation. "We shouldn't treat students seeking to better their lives through education with immediate suspicion," says ACLU of Missouri Legal Director Tony Rothert. "Under the Fourth Amendment, every person has the right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure—including college students."

Advertisement

NEXT: Obama, Trump Trade Barbs Over Who'd Win in a Match Up, Post-Christmas Disturbances at Malls Across U.S., 40 Shot in Chicago Over Christmas Weekend: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Maybe that’s because the ACLU sees its mission as protecting constitutional rights rather than facilitating their violation.

    Sometimes.

    Ask them about Amendments I and II to the US Constitution. (They will occasionally support I)

    1. The ACLU isn’t a monolith. There are local chapters that have a much better record than the central body, and there are local chapters that are worse. Generally speaking, they re more of a positive than not, it’s just so irritating when they shtick their claimed principles to forward as Liberal Left agenda.

      I suppose there may have been instances of a local branch doing the same to forward a Conservative Right agenda, I just haven’t heard of one.

      1. I would feel better about the ACLU if they stopped conflating the right to do X with the right to have tax money subsidize X.

        1. right to do X

          Sorry, bro, i’m married.

          1. I thought there was no right to refuse service to anyone?

  2. They should be tested not so they can be punished, but so that they can be referred to early intervention and treatment for drug addiction. Better safe than sorry.

    1. Thank God, someone knows whats best for them.

    2. Treatment for addiction? I thought you claimed addiction wasn’t real.

      1. Troll is troll, news at 11.

    3. Glad to know you believe in the Precautionary Principle. Fuck off.

  3. …whether or not they were enrolled in “safety-sensitive” programs such as aviation maintenance or industrial electricity. Why should a student learning design drafting have to pass a drug test…

    I don’t see how learning aviation maintenance or industrial electricianry is any more “safety-sensitive” than drafting class.

    1. You might want to ask an insurance actuary what the difference in personal injury risk is. I would be more worried about insuring permanent damage from a wrench or turbine falling on me, or a being fried from hot wire or falling through a vent, than lethally injuring myself from a pattern ruler or a copy of AutoCAD.

      Assuming all occupations have exactly the same risk consequence is ObamneyCare levels foolish, wylie.

      1. Your argument would support testing only in or around times when the students actually would be handling those machines or equipment, not when they enroll.

        1. You’re right. Clearly we can, and should, insure and rebuild houses that have burned to the ground after the fact.

          Actually, you aren’t. I didn’t say anything about testing per se; I addressed wylie’s implied claim that occupations enjoy the same risk corridors and areas.

          Furthermore, if I, as the institution, am on the hook for injury liability of the students, yes, then I have *EVERY* right to test for any possible risk premium mitigation. Not to mention if I, as a school, have to provide medical insurance for these students.

          Otherwise, you will agree that students, before agreeing to register for, and attend any classes, relieve the school of any (and I mean **ANY**) liability at all whatsoever and agree to total 100% Caveat Emptor, thus taking their own lives and limbs into their own hands.

          1. my statement was regarding education, not the undertaking of the occupation.

            1. Which does have liability attached to it, in of itself. Unless all, and I mean *ALL* of the learning is only from books & websites viewed off campus on the students’ dime & domicile, and no practical labs occur on school property or otherwise, thus relieving everyone involved of any injurious risk. Why should the school incur risk if it can screen out potential risk liability and separate potential liability risks from students who present a lower liability risk profile?

              For example, me myself, I eventually had to practice medicine and operate on real, life, flesh and blood human beings in various levels of medical health. I assume the medical school should neither have risk mitigation plan in place, as well as the actual hospitals themselves? (FTR, I was drug tested before I was let within a 1000 feet of each entity, forget actual patients).

            2. Oh, and I was fully drug screened and background checked as a part of the medical school application process, wylie. Anything, even RXd, was evaluated as part of the admissions process.

              Which is real life example of your point of education v. practical occupation.

              1. I’m under-qualified to continue an argument of this caliber.

                1. I’m under-qualified to continue an argument of this caliber.

                  “0% Cost Liability of You is 100% Ownership of Yourself”

                  Now you’re qualified.

                  1. I didn’t understand the quote the 1st time, pretty sure I’m beyond help. You tried though, thanks.

          2. Furthermore, if I, as the institution, am on the hook for injury liability of the students, yes, then I have *EVERY* right to test for any possible risk premium mitigation. Not to mention if I, as a school, have to provide medical insurance for these students.

            And in this case shouldn’t the testing be mandatory regardless of the course of study? Hell, why do we even let untrained people near anything risky in the first place?

            1. And in this case shouldn’t the testing be mandatory regardless of the course of study?

              That’s up the school and the insurance actuaries and underwriters, as they would decide which is the most likely for personal injury in the course of study. Screening beforehand certainly isn’t irrational.

              Hell, why do we even let untrained people near anything risky in the first place?

              Because people have to learn didactally somehow; since risk is involved, mitigating potential liability of injury and the ever-popular wrongful death/personal injury lawsuit.

              Get rid of TORT law, sign complete waivers of personal injury and accidental death indemnity, then there isn’t any reason for any type of testing at all, is there?

              1. Shorter Groovus: Liability law is completely out of control.

                1. Shorter Groovus: Liability law is completely out of control.

                  As a physician who survived and won two medical malpractice lawsuits (both bench trials), and the first one dismissed with prejudice and the judge asking me directly from the bench if I wanted to sue the plaintiff for court costs (he was prepared to rule right then and there – I declined in open court since the plantiff was caught red-handed for insurance fraud), yes, wylie, it is.

                  Shorter wylie: Yes, an insurance co should pay for my insulin and test strips *after* I have been conclusively DXd for Type II Diabetes, and *before* the policy was issued. How DARE they ask for my health HX *beforehand*.

                  1. For the record, my insurance has never paid for my insulin or associated supplies because it’s just easier to get that shit at walmart. If only I could acquire all of it from amazon like the strips, but hey, can’t let the druggies buy insulin syringes without making them sign a log-book. Keep-on Gatekeepin!

                    1. Good for you. You will also relieve the insurance co. of any and all complications stemming directly or indirectly from your diabetes, in direct correlation to how you manage it, correct?

                      In fact, why did you even go to the dr in the first place, since apparently, you are your own best endocrinologist, and why did you go to the ER when you were in an accident and needed radiology services (thought I forgot that, didn’t you)? How come you didn’t do all this yourself? I take it you’ll buy everything you need, do it all yourself, and release everyone of liability so everything costs 5% over margin in lieu of legal liability costs, right? I’m sure you can take out your own gall bladder, dissect your own intestines, or even remove your own internal haemorrhoids, right?

                      We wouldn’t need Gatekeepers (or drug testing, actually) if frivolous lawsuits could be mitigated and I had the option to offer a full & complete indemnity waiver to any patient absolving me of any and all liability. Period. Full Stop. End of Story.

                      And I say that as a patient as well as a doctor (you always forget I am am patient too, wylie).

                    2. In the future I plan to save myself the time and just die.

                    3. In the future I plan to save myself the time and just die.

                      You told me that six years ago. I, for one, am really glad you keep FAILing at this goal, since I have always liked your comments, and you as well, personally, wylie d.

                      You’re one of the few on this board I would treat at cost to you, no questions asked.

  4. I knew this kid who started smoking dope in high school, and then he became a coke addict in college, and then he became a handsome and brilliant FBI agent who solved a lot of terrorism cases – all while being a ‘functioning alcoholic’ – and then at age 52 he died from an overdose of xanax and oxy after returning home from an AA meeting.

    1. Moral of the story: college drug testing could have caught his problem and prevented the addiction before it spiraled out of control.

      1. The kid was deeply ashamed for knowing you and went out like a real man.

        1. Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together. 😉

          Speaking of which – how’s it going, Mongo?

      2. That is idiotic, You say he was coming home from an AA meeting so he was getting ‘treatment’ and still died.

        1. It’s AddictionMyth. AM once left a garage sale in anger because, “There wasn’t ONE garage I could buy!”

    2. because, DRUGS. no way this guy was self-medicating for an undiagnosed disorder. nope, the drugs made him do them.

      1. This is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FUCK YEAH! You dopers aren’t tricking us with your medicine excuses! All medicines must be prescribed by a medical expert, even baby aspirin! And you don’t need any! You dopers will shoot up anything! I can’t wait until Sessions puts this dope like tylenol and benedryl and coffee and tea and chocolate on schedule 1 where they belong!

        1. If America were serious about winning, we’d have a Schedule 0, as in Zero Drugs.

          1. MERICA, FUCK YEAH! Zero tolerance, build the camps now!

            1. Corpses don’t require camps.

              Do you even Final Solution, broh?

              1. Damnit, you are right! All dopers eventually become pushers! No more pushers shooting up our children with marijuana! Death to pushers! Heil to the Sessions! Heil to the Trumputin!

              1. It’s “schedule ME,” Frankie. 😉

            1. Only off by 6-7 orders of magnitude.

  5. I can’t wait until Trump builds the wall to stop the drugs pouring over our border and poisoning our youth. But until we have a drug-free society, drug testing is a great option. Even if they are not addicted, at least they can be useful for rooting out the drug dealers within our midsts.

    1. I’ll donate $10 to the neighborhood crackhead if you place the twin barrels of a 12-gauge in your mouth and pull the trigger.

      1. Someone piss in your cheerios this morning, Mongo? Sowwy

      2. I’ll throw in another $20. We can lose several trolls at once.

  6. Even if the students are not clinically addicted, they may be using drugs to self-medicate for undiagnosed mental disorders. Which if left untreated can lead to violence and death. Drug testing is a great way to root out such problems so these unfortunates can be provided with early intervention and treatment.

    1. It’s not the school’s job to “root out” my problems.

  7. C. Arlen Beam, joined by James Loken, describes the Supreme Court’s rulings in this area as “generally validating the suspicionless drug testing and screening being carried on by America’s government, business, service and educational institutions, saying there is no dispute, ‘nor can there be doubt, that [illicit] drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society today.'” Beam cites the recent surgeon general’s report on drug addiction, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016, and the large share of criminal cases in the 8th Circuit that involve drug offenses (34 percent) as evidence that Linn State faces “substantial health, safety and security problems, all of which are specifically ameliorated by the College’s well-conceived drug-testing and screening program.”

    He’s right, you know. The Supreme Court has opined that when the government infringes the Constitutional rights they’re forbidden to infringe, they have to have a reason – perhaps even a compelling reason – for doing so. Certainly, they’ve established the principle that none of your rights are absolute and therefore their infringement is just a matter of what constitutes a “reasonable” infringement. The answer is always “just a little bit more”.

  8. The country is experiencing an epidemic of drug overdoses. People are dying, and this could have been prevented if we just caught their addiction earlier. “Oh but Fourth Amendment! Fourth Amendment!” – Those are foolish people.

    1. some great trolling you have going on today…off your meds?

      1. your taste in trolling is pedestrian.

      2. No – Donnie gave me his margarita recipe now that he’s off the campaign trail. Been trying it out. Whaddaya think?

        1. Needs more cyanide.

        2. Feed cockroaches and they keep coming by.
          This piece of shit may be as smart as the average cockroach, so it’ll probably do the same.

    2. I wonder if alcohol was illegal, if people would be dying as a result of consuming an impure or contaminated product, or from consuming a product with varying levels of potency, as a direct result of it being illegal. Oh, shit! That already happened! I wonder if anything could be learned from this… Nah! Drugs are bad!

      1. + methanol

  9. Just as important, these colleges must teach the kids that drug addiction is a disease, not a moral failing: “Don’t steal drugs from your family and neighbors. Why? Because if you do it for long enough then it can trigger a disease that makes you do naughty things like steal drugs from family and neighbors. Mkay?”

  10. AddictionMyth has the computer room at the group home all to itself this morning, apparently. Is it because all the other inmates have families to spend the holiday with?

      1. This is your brain. This is your brain on Proavtiv. Zit cream is for topical use Weigal. You’re not supposed to swallow it.

  11. I seem to recall P. J. O’Rourke writing that if mandatory general drug screening wasn’t unreasonable search and seizure, then he proposed that pissing on a judge wasn’t assault.

    Sound right to me….

  12. I think Congress and everyone employed as staff should be subject to random drug testing. No lawmaking while under the influence!!

    1. Oh, hell, why go halfway? Congress and everyone employed as staff should be tried for high treason, convicted on their records, and beheaded.

      Won’t happen, mind, but neither will drug testing.

    2. What’s the test for power-lust?

      1. There isn’t one. But making them live by their own rules is a bit of an antidote for that. The entire executive branch is subject to drug testing. Why should Congress be any different? The federal government is a drug free workplace and drug use is inconsistent with employment there. It says so in the federal code and the OPM regulations.

      2. drug-testing would probably work still, since they need something to get them by till their next power-fix.

        1. Well then let’s just roll out the blunts for congress if that’s the case. Replace one addiction at least.

        1. That’s quite paradox. Back to monarchy it is.

      3. Eagerness to justify the initiation of force and to denigrate the Non-Aggression Pact as foolish consistency verging on radical lack of hypocrisy.

  13. They should simply have a pre-printed form:

    The two judges who dissented from the decision, by contrast, argue that a ______________ problem confronting society in general is enough to justify ________________

    1. Why we pay for all these judges when a couple rubber-stamps could do the job I’ll never know.

      1. LOL. You’re not half bad, you know that wylie?

  14. Quiet morning…..

    OT: Anyone want to check out my shiny new UN 2334? It’s so much fun! Watch how it makes Boobi go wild!

      1. Nom nom nom. More! MORE!!!

            1. The troll-pocalypse approacheth!

            2. That tamarind brisket dish turned out fantastic by the way, I may put that into my permanent rotation every few months. Glad you dropped that recipe in here. The sauce base benefitted from the twist of adding a dash of Maggi. Unfortunately iit didn’t satisfy in the same way that hankerings for meats that pair well with sour condiments and pickled vegetables do.

              1. The sauce base benefitted from the twist of adding a dash of Maggi.

                Good to know. We haven’t made it yet. Wife is doing a roast turkey today.

              2. Sneaking boullion or stock into a recipe works magic.

  15. OH GOD I HOPE TRUMP REINSTATES THE HOUSE UNISRAELI ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE TO ROOT OUT THE ANTI-SEMITIC TROLLS AND BDS SYMPATHIZERS IN OUR MIDSTS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND NEW MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS KNIFING THEIR CLASSMATES AFTER BEING TRIGGERED BY MICROAGGRESSIONS.

  16. Wow this place is not nearly as fun as The Atlantic in the AM.

  17. Catch ya later, my filthy little anarcho-frankentrumpkenstiens. Try to stay out of trouble…..

  18. But what if those blankets are made out of hemp?

  19. The appeals court adds that adults attending a college with no special history of drug problems are constitutionally distinct from minors attending high schools facing a real or perceived substance abuse “crisis,” a context in which the Supreme Court has approved testing of all students participating in sports or other competitive extracurricular programs.

    I long for the day when we overturn statist ruling like this. What goes into my minor childrens’ body is nobody’s business but me and my minor children. Reason #1,725,936 why I homeschool.

    1. attending a college with no special history of drug problems are constitutionally distinct from minors attending high schools facing a real or perceived substance abuse “crisis,”

      Yeah, that standard doesn’t create a gaping loophole that you could drive a tanker truck of urine samples through. Note that the crisis only has to be perceived, not real, so all you need is someone, anyone, saying they think there’s a crisis, and voila, the 4A i switched off.

      [peruses 4th Amendment]

      Yup, its right there in the text:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, unless the person is a minor attending a high school facing a real or perceived substance abuse crisis.

      1. and voila, the 4A i switched off

        Was it ever on?

        1. Not since Willebrandt enforced prohibition in the 1920s… What saved us was veterans keeping their pieces after The Great War and evening the score on the dry killers. Moral: A Second Amendment will get you through times of no Fourth Amendment better than a Fourth Amendment will get you through times of Christian National Socialist Kristallnacht laws and prohibitionism… (no Second Amendment)

    2. What goes into my minor childrens’ body is nobody’s business but me and my minor children.

      And any entity charged with treating, and/or paying out any insurance claim on the health and medical procedures performed of and on said child (or anyone else, FTM).

      A couple of the Groovy Medical Iron Laws:

      “0% Cost Liability of You is 100% Ownership of Yourself”

      Also,

      “He Who Pays, Rules the Play”

  20. Imagine how much better things would be if drugs were legal and the war was over.

    1. You dopers hate the children and want the terrorists to win!

  21. What until Sessions hears about this. He ain’t going to take kindly to these doper kids not having to submit to the state for a proper inspection. We need a new and improved war on drugs with a true warrior leading the charge! Colorado and Oregon, he’s coming for you dopers next, your doper days are about up!

  22. OT: Our national nightmare is finally over – Rex Ryan and his fatter brother have been fired.

    1. Given Rex’s proclivities, I thought you two might be on friendly terms, or at least acquaintances.

  23. As always, the important qualifier arises: running colleges is not the business of the state.

  24. Slippery slope here; if this testing happens, the next thing you know adults will be strip searched at airports without reasonable suspicion.

  25. Yep. Going Postal over which co-workers were asset-forfeiting more than their share of stimulants was indeed a Prohibitionist American Custom, but the murder and mayhem was justified because… Just Say No, and Satanic Possession, right? And Ronnie ‘n George Holy War Bush had good intentions with the pee-in-a-dixie-cup laws, I mean, altruism and hating Satan are good, right? And according to recent jurisprudence, Twinkies, chocolate milk and older women are all as addictive as smack as law overrides medicine, definitions and pharmacology. So it’s looking like that 328% spike in Libertarian votes as spoilers in 11 states holding 90 electoral votes has put another scare into the courts… like in 1972 just before Roe v. Wade was decided so as to keep the GO-Pee from shooting its own feet. Interesting times…

  26. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  27. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  28. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  29. Whoever decided to add the photo at the top of the article without correcting its white balance should be drug tested.

  30. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  31. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  32. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  33. I basically profitcloseto $6k-$8k every month doing an online job. For those of you who arepreparedto do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earnvaluablepaycheck while doing it…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  34. My best uncal ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    ================ http://www.homejobs7.com

  35. Bentley . true that Ashley `s blurb is good… last week I got Lotus Esprit sincee geting a check for $5815 this-last/five weeks and-even more than, ten/k lass-month . without a doubt it is the easiest work I’ve ever done . I began this seven months/ago and almost immediately startad earning minimum $77… per-hour . more tips here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.