SCOTUS declines to hear Florida drug testing appeal, Scott fights on

Rick Scott 400k Drugs ImageThe U.S. Supreme Court has turned down an appeal to hear arguments about Florida’s controversial drug-testing policy, which lower courts have declared unconstitutional. In 2011, Gov. Rick Scott signed executive orders that required mandatory drug testing for all state employees, and those receiving welfare benefits. Since the orders were given, state and federal judges have ruled both orders unconstitutional for reasons of privacy and violating the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Despite Florida courts and lower-level federal courts declaring the law unconstitutional, Gov. Scott has continued to file appeals to higher courts, a process that has cost Florida taxpayers upwards of $380,000 for the various lawsuits, according to the Florida American Civil Liberties Union. That figure does not include lawyers’ fees. “Every court that has heard Gov. Scott’s argument that the state has the power to compel people to submit their bodily fluids for government inspection without suspicion of wrongdoing has rejected it as a violation of the Constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches,” said Florida ACLU Staff Attorney Shalini Goel Agarwal. “It’s become a costly and embarrassing boondoggle for Floridians.” Since the Supreme Court has declined to hear Scott’s appeal, the decision made by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be upheld. That court ruled that state employees should not be required to submit to urine testing unless they are suspected of drug use, except in job situations that may affect public safety. Scott has also appealed an Orlando federal judge’s decision that welfare recipients will not be forced to undergo mandatory drug tests. Scott argues that this type of drug testing would save the state money. However, in the few months after he signed the executive order before the courts intervened, the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients tested negative for drugs, and so the bulk of the costs of testing fell to the taxpayers with little saved in benefits. photo credit: Mark Fischer via photopin cc]]>

You May Also Like

Check out these additional posts from Mind Your Business.

Background Checks for Remote Employees: Things to Consider

Conducting background checks on new hires continues to be a standard practice for most companies. The way many organizations operate, hire, and conduct business has changed. One of the biggest changes is the number of individuals who transitioned to working from home. Many employers are now offering teleworking options or even recruiting nationwide for candidates.…
Read More

Social Media Screening: What You Need to Know

Social media screening has become a hot topic in the industry and for good reason. It was discouraged by legal counsel and was thought of as a very risky hiring practice. The pre-employment screening landscape has changed, and now social media screening is a common hiring practice for commercial organizations and the federal government. Today,…
Read More

Is the National Criminal Database Search Enough?

When conducting a background check, the first step is often searching the National Criminal Database. Also known as the Multi-State or the National Search, this search type pulls information from thousands of databases and jurisdictions. It is often the cheapest option and commonly mistaken as the “all-inclusive” background check. Many companies unknowingly rely on only…
Read More

Quality and Precise Results, On Time!

Let us know about your screening needs to get a custom quote. We work with businesses big and small as well as the government. Which means we have a package of solutions for your organization as well.