Whatcha think about him now :-)

[Gumbo]

Wevans, you're absolutely correct that the case dealt with testing students (and involved the Washington State Constitution), but the discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing the issue of random drug testing is thorough and accurate. The Supremes have consistently held that there needs to be something about the testing that outweighs the privacy rights of the person being tested without suspicion. To my knowledge, the only two cases where they have endorsed suspicionless testing was where public safety was involved; railroad conductors and customs agents. I just don't see any such compelling interest here. And our District Court for the Norther District of Florida agreed in 2004. From a purely legal standpoint, I simply do not believe the Governor is on sound footing.

Now, many may feel it a laudable policy goal to ensure that tax dollars in the form of state salaries and welfare not be spent on people who do illegal drugs. But if that is a sufficient reason for suspicionless testing, then where does it stop? Someone calls 911, police (paid by tax dollars) arrive, do we test the caller? What about the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge? Paid for with tax dollars, so should there be a testing station up by the gate to ensure that anyone enjoying those tax dollars is drug-free? Interstate highways, paid for with tax dollars, pee cups on every on-ramp? And if you can drug test welfare recipients, shouldn't the police be able to search their homes for drugs without a warrant? I mean, a drug test has been ruled to be a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes in the same manner as having your home examined, so why shouldn't the logic extend to allow suspicionless home searches?

We need to vigilently guard our constitutional protections. Every Article and Amendment of our Constitution, whether it's the First, Second, or Fourth, stands together to protect us. If we sacrifice one, for whatever reason, the others are at risk.

[wevans]

I both agree and disagree with ya while we do need to protect our rights, we also have to find a way to stop those who buy $300 of items, pay for it with their food card and then load it all into a brand new Escalade

[Gumbo]

I completely agree with that statement, Wevans, infuriates me to see such abuses. I just don't want to see our rights or the needs of the truly deserving trashed in some manner because some abuse the system so badly. Perhaps Gov Scott making this move will forward that debate, the true debate, which would be a great thing.

Enough of the soapbox. Time to get the boat ready, think an early morning trip to Oyster Bay is what this taxpayer needs.

[MudDucker]

Here's a Washington Supreme Court case addressing random drug tests. Hard to see how Gov Scott's executive order is going to pass constitutional muster. And given that this State was dinged for $150,000 in damages in 2004 when one DJJ employee sued over random drug testing, it could be an expensive loss.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/media/pd ... Ruling.pdf

This is 1. a case from the left coast and not a US Supreme Court case, 2. it expressly states random drug testing is fine, but questions random searches based on suspicious conduct and 3. is not relevant to the question at hand.

In other words, it is not precedent AT ALL for what you say it is and if it was, it would not be binding in the State of Florida.