UNREASONABLE TESTING

A federal judge this week shot legal holes through Florida's
requirement that all welfare applicants undergo drug testing.

We hope Gov. Rick Scott, who promoted the ill-advised tests, backs off
the policy before more money is wasted defending it in court.

The judge temporarily suspended the drug testing requirement, faulting
the fact that results lack confidentiality and noting that the policy
violates constitutional protections. That's because it forces welfare
applicants to be tested even when there are no grounds to reasonably
suspect that they are drug users.

As the judge noted, a prior pilot project by the state found that drug
use was not at all prevalent among welfare recipients. That suggests
that the new drug testing policy is driven not by fact but by false
assumptions - or is simply a backhanded way to discourage needy people
from applying for benefits. Applicants must pay for the tests (up to
$45) and aren't reimbursed until later, if they pass.

Formally known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the
benefits are part of the national safety net, meant to help people in
poverty. TANF provides cash payments (a cumulative total of four
years' worth over a lifetime) to citizens whose incomes are extremely low.

In her ruling, Judge Mary Scriven agreed that "TANF funds should not
be used to fund the drug trade." But if that is the only logic behind
the blanket drug testing of welfare applicants, she indicated, then it
would also apply to "every beneficiary of every government program."

Such blanket intrusions, she said, cannot be countenanced under the
Fourth Amendment, which forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures."

"What the Fourth Amendment requires is that such incursions by the
Government must be reserved for demonstrated special needs of
government or be based on some showing of reasonable suspicion or
probable cause," Scriven wrote.

The judge also found that the state failed to show conclusively that
the policy, which carries substantial administrative costs, would save
money. That point should be of interest to our bottom-line governor.

In ruling against the governor and Legislature, Scriven will likely
stand accused of being an "activist" judge. But she stood up for
people's rights under the Constitution.

If only our political leaders would do the same.