• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Michigan Welfare Drug-Test Requirement

BA

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
20,156
Ban on drug tests for welfare recipients upheld

In a decision released Wednesday, an evenly divided U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision that invalidated the Michigan law requiring drug testing of welfare recipients.

The effect of the ruling is to continue the status quo, as the law was never fully implemented after a 1999 injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts.

Roberts was reversed by a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit last fall. But the full court divided 6-6 on an appeal of that decision, thereby reinstating the injunction.

Another appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible. But state officials said Wednesday no decision on whether to pursue the case has been made.

Michigan lawmakers and former Gov. John Engler enacted the controversial statute in 1998 in an effort to end what they called the cycle of dependency for drug users. It would have required welfare applicants to undergo drug testing and face the possible loss of benefits if they tested positive and refused to enter treatment.

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the policy as an unreasonable intrusion on the privacy and dignity of people receiving government help.

Graham Boyd, the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project director, said Wednesday that the ruling should "send a message to the rest of the nation that drug testing programs like these are neither an appropriate or effective use of a state's limited resources."

A spokeswoman for Gov. Jennifer Granholm said no decision on an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court has been made.

Granholm was a critic of the policy early in her campaign for governor, but said after last fall's court decision that she planned to implement it if elected. Spokeswoman Elizabeth Boyd said Granholm supports drug testing for welfare recipients when there is reasonable suspicion they have been using drugs.

The Michigan law allows for blanket testing. According to the ACLU, when the state implemented the policy on a pilot basis, 21 of 268 people tested positive, all but three for marijuana.

That level of drug use is "consistent with drug use in the general population," the ACLU said in a statement.

Attorney General Mike Cox also has the authority to seek an appeal, said spokesman Sage Eastman. But the case is under review, he said.

The story link
 
I think the government has a compelling interest to know if the people to which they are providing aid (through my tax dollars no less) are dependent on drugs.
 
It's fair only if the politicans who receive their income from my taxes take drug test too.
 
^^^

Where is the compelling state issue in this case?
 
Dr. J said:
I think the government has a compelling interest to know if the people to which they are providing aid (through my tax dollars no less) are dependent on drugs.

What does this mean, exactly? Notice that you can make this argument about any constitutional violation:

The government has a compelling interest in stopping crime, doesn't it? So why should they have to get a warrant to search your house if they think you've got drugs?
 
It seems like a really good way to increase crime to me.
More crime=more people in jail
More people in jail=more tax dollars wasted.

Think about it Dr J
 
^^^
My point was not about tax dollars, that was an aside, nothing to do with the legal rational in any way.

Posted by Mahan Atma:
The government has a compelling interest in stopping crime, doesn't it? So why should they have to get a warrant to search your house if they think you've got drugs?

Because a warrantless search would run counter to the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the 4th amendment, it would be subject to the strict scrutiny test. The state's interest does not supercede the fundamental right in this case (without a warrant, anyway).

Moreover, with regard to drug testing, one could argue the government would be using reasonable means (drug testing) to serve a legitimate purpose. To qualify for this however, a showing would have to be made that welfare recipients have a lower expectation of privacy, or some other way to qualify their right to privacy.
 
Last edited:
Dr. J said:
Because a warrantless search would run counter to the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the 4th amendment, it would be subject to the strict scrutiny test. The state's interest does not supercede the fundamental right in this case (without a warrant, anyway).

Yeah, but see the state agency here doesn't have a warrant to do these drug tests. And drugs tests are searches. Therefore, it's a warrantless search.
 
^^^

Not necessarily. Much has been said by the court in cases of public schools, where "special needs" have been established. A three prong test was developed to determine of 4th amendment rights were violated....
1. The nature of the privacy interest
2. The character of the intrusion,
3. And the nature and the immediacy of the government's concerns and the efficacy of the policy in meeting these concerns.

While these specific tests may not apply directly to a welfare test, one could certainly make these same arguments, again, in showing a COMPELLING interest. Of course, there is a difference between schools and welfare recipients, but seeing as much of the justification for school drug testing is that the schools are nurturing, watching over the students, one could argue that the government is doing the same to ensure that those on welfare get off welfare and back to productive members of society.

And, as a side note in further reading the case--I think in cases of real suspicion, there is no question, in my mind, of the legality of the search.

I'll admit, it may not be the strongest argument, but I'm kind of talking out of my ass here anyway, it's late and I'm just typin as I go ;)
 
Last edited:
Dr. J said:
^^^

Not necessarily. Much has been said by the court in cases of public schools, where "special needs" have been established. A three prong test was developed to determine of 4th amendment rights were violated....

It's still a warrantless search.

I know all about "special needs" and the three-pronged balancing test. I did my moot court case last year on drug testing in schools.

And frankly, it's bullshit. For example, one of the prongs of the test goes to the "intrusiveness" of the search. Now, it's pretty hard to argue with a straight face that making someone pee on demand (while you listen to them, mind you) and hand you their urine in a cup is NOT intruding on your privacy rather severely.

And in fact, in a case dealing with drug testing of government agents, Scalia himself describe urine tests as "particularly destructive of privacy and offensive to personal liberty". Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 680.

But then, when they're dealing with high school children or welfare recipients, the privacy intrusion is dubbed "negligible". Acton v. Vernonia.

That's why these "balancing tests" are nothing more than an excuse for trashing the Constitution. It's pure pretext dude.
 
Last edited:
Not yet :)

And frankly, it's bullshit. For example, one of the prongs of the test goes to the "intrusiveness" of the search. Now, it's pretty hard to argue with a straight face that making someone pee on demand (while you listen to them, mind you) and hand you their urine in a cup is NOT intruding on your privacy rather severely.

Well, as you know, since students shower together and change together, they already have a lower expectation privacy. But, this is getting off topic.

And, even given Scalia's remarks, drug testing of government employees is legal.
 
Last edited:
Dr. J said:
Well, as you know, since students shower together and change together, they already have a lower expectation privacy.

But the "special needs" exception for drug testing goes beyond athletes. Students in the chess club don't shower and change together, right?

And what, exactly, does a "balancing test" mean? You have the intrusion on privacy on one hand. The so-called "compelling state interest" on the other. What are you supposed to do, you put them on a special "balancing" scale or something and see which one is heavier?

No. Of course not, it's impossible to "balance" such intangibles in any truly objective fashion.

It's just an excuse for the Court to decide the way they want to.
 
I dont know enough about the legalities of all this to have an opinion, but what are people's opinions on whether this is morally right or not?

I think that it's not called for. It's probably not a widely held view (outside groups like Bluelight), but I tend to think that people have the right to privacy in their own minds (and bloodstreams).

Besides - is losing your unemployment benefits really going to help you if you're a drug addict? Or is it likely to turn you into a thief or crack whore? If this was really about trying to help addicts, they wouldn't be cutting them loose to deal with quitting a drug addiction AND poverty at the same time - they'd be actually HELPING THEM.

The more I look at this, the more I see it as an attempt by a mean-spirited person to say "You're a drug addict, drug addicts are evil, so I want to make sure I'm not spending any money helping you out".

But hey, maybe I'm just paranoid...

It seems to me like they'd be better off helping these people find jobs instead of forcing them to live on the streets - make another happy taxpayer instead of a drug-addicted mugger (not meaning to imply that every desperate person turns to crime, but I'd sure be thinking about it in that position).

HC
 
These kinds of "special needs" exceptions are totally insidious. Look at how the doctrine evolved over the course of the last 20 years or so.

It started out as this tiny little exception for building inspectors who needed to inspect buildings without having to get a warrant. Then, bit by bit, it gets expanded more and more, applied to yet another situation. The rationale behind it gets less and less contained, and before you know it you have this really widely-applied doctrine for completely circumventing the Fourth Amendment.

It's like boiling a frog -- Turn up the heat slowly enough, and they won't even know it's happening.

Drug testing of schoolkids is particularly dangerous. We're teaching these kids at a young age that they shouldn't expect to have any privacy. By the time they're voting adults, the government will be able to pull all kinds of shit on em.

"Random drug tests for everyone? Sure, why not? We had to get tested in high school, why shouldn't everybody else get tested now?"

Piece by piece, the Constitution gets disassembled. The War on Drugs. The War on Terror. By the time there's nothing left, it will be too late -- we won't have even the procedural due process rights we need to even challenge the government in court...

Very sad... :(
 
It's just an excuse for the Court to decide the way they want to.

Well, what other option do they have besides weighing these intagibles? And, while I agree the chess club doesn't shower or change, most other competitive activities do, such as marching band. Ever change on a bus full of girls and boys? Or hang out on any speech/debate tournament. Might as well be orgies ;)

I disagree with the school drug testing cases, at least with their rational. Just offering some some thoughts to consider.
 
Dr. J said:
Well, what other option do they have besides weighing these intagibles?

The most sensible option is to not replace the Fourth Amendment with a "balancing test" in the first place.
 
I'm so glad I don't live in America, I really am. I praise God for blessing me with the good fortune not to have been born there.
 
The most sensible option is to not replace the Fourth Amendment with a "balancing test" in the first place.

But we don't live in a perfect world, do we? Without the balancing test, however, how would we have arrived at the distinctions between the expectation of privacy in a car vs. the home, or exigent circumstances. Much like the fluidity of the first amendment, nothing in the constitution is absolute, it simply can't be. So, perhaps the balancing test is the best option available?

I'm so glad I don't live in America, I really am. I praise God for blessing me with the good fortune not to have been born there.

I'm curious what you're alluding to here. I'll venture a guess and respond that despite what many may think, the US has more protections and freedoms and safeguards for people than most countries, in terms of civil liberties. Some of this is being chipped away, to some degree, but i won't launch into anything here until I know what you mean.
 
killarava2day have you been to America or are you just basing that on what anti-americans have said?
 
Top