{"id":8426,"date":"2013-04-30T18:42:35","date_gmt":"2013-02-26T20:03:04","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-02-26T20:03:04","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8426","title":{"rendered":"CA11: Drug testing as a condition of receiving public assistance in Florida violates the Fourth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Drug testing as a condition of receiving public assistance in Florida violates the Fourth Amendment. The state’s proffer on \u201cspecial needs\u201d exception as justification woefully fails. Lebron v. Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Families<\/a>, 710 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2013):<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families (\u201cState\u201d) appeals from the district court\u2019s order enjoining the State of Florida from requiring Luis W. Lebron to submit to a suspicionless drug test pursuant to Section 414.0652 of the Florida Statutes, as a condition for receipt of government provided monetary assistance for which he was otherwise qualified. <\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

In addition to the mandatory drug test, applicants are required to sign a release acknowledging their consent to be tested. Id. \u00a7 414.0652(2)(e). At the time Lebron applied for TANF benefits, he was notified of Florida\u2019s mandatory drug testing requirement and that he was required to sign the release before DCF would allow him to proceed with the application process. Lebron signed the release, completed the application process and was found eligible for TANF benefits. However, he did not submit to the drug test, but instead filed this lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Florida\u2019s mandatory suspicionless drug testing as a violation of his and all other TANF applicants\u2019 Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the drug testing statute against Lebron and the State agreed to discontinue its drug testing regime as to all TANF applicants until this litigation is fully resolved. <\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

. . . We conclude that, on this record, the answer to that question of whether there is a substantial special need for mandatory suspicionless drug testing is \u201cno.\u201d <\/p>\n

As the district court found, the State failed to offer any factual support or to present any empirical evidence of a \u201cconcrete danger\u201d of illegal drug use within Florida\u2019s TANF population. See id. at 319. The evidence in this record does not suggest that the population of TANF recipients engages in illegal drug use or that they misappropriate government funds for drugs at the expense of their own and their children\u2019s basic subsistence. The State has presented no evidence that simply because an applicant for TANF benefits is having financial problems, he is also drug addicted or prone to fraudulent and neglectful behavior.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

There is nothing so special or immediate about the government\u2019s interest in ensuring that TANF recipients are drug free so as to warrant suspension of the Fourth Amendment. The only known and shared characteristic of the individuals who would be subjected to Florida\u2019s mandatory drug testing program is that they are financially needy families with children. Yet, there is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a \u201cconcrete danger\u201d that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use or that should drug use occur, that the lives of TANF recipients are \u201cfraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences.\u201d Skinner, 489 U.S. at 628; see also Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 670. Thus, the State\u2019s argument that it has a special need to ensure that the goals of the TANF program are not jeopardized by the effects of drug use seems to rest on the presumption of unlawful drug use. But the Supreme Court has required that a state must present adequate factual support that there exists a \u201cconcrete danger,\u201d Chandler, 520 U.S. at 319, not simply conjecture that there is a substantial \u201cspecial need\u201d that cannot be met by ordinary law enforcement methods warranting the drastic action of abrogating an individual\u2019s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable government searches. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8426","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8426","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8426"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8426\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8426"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8426"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8426"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}