UCF Student Luis Lebron, ACLU Sue Florida over Gov. Scott’s Welfare Drug Tests
Beyond UCF, Politics — By Kevin Wolkenfeld on September 7, 2011 at 6:37 pmLuis Lebron, a UCF student and Navy veteran, sued the state of Florida this Tuesday over its policy requiring all adults applying for welfare to get drug tested.
The Tampa Tribune broke the story this morning, with the help of KnightNews.com, which partnered with the paper by providing exclusive pictures of Lebron for its coverage, taken by KnightNews.com’s Kurt Rivers on the same day Lebron filed suit.
Lebron is not your average student. He is 35 years old and an Accounting major at UCF who takes cares of his four-year-old son and his mentally disabled mother.
Lebron had troubles with employment and used up his veteran’s benefits before deciding on getting assistance from the state, but he didn’t like the thought of getting drug tested, according to the Tampa Tribune.
“It made me feel really bad; I just felt like everything was caving in on me. I felt like, I served my country for four years; doesn’t that mean anything anymore? I’ve worked for pretty good companies. I’m going to school; I’m supposed to graduate. I shouldn’t be in this position,” Lebron told the Tribune.
He made sure to say in the interview he does not take illegal substances.
The article went on to say Lebron contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which agreed to take the case and filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the state.
Previous Post: Click here to enter HP TouchPad Giveaway
Tweet This
Digg This
Share on Facebook
Stumble it
12 Comments
On September 1, 2000 the U.S. District Court struck down a decision that had required suspicion less drug tests on the population. The District Court Judge held that the law was unconstitutional and did not address how it would joepardize public safety.
More than a decade has passed and the wall of justice have opened again to ensure civil liberties are reinforced and not violated. A lawsuit was filed on September 06, 2011 by the ALCU of Florida on behalf of Luis Lebron and those affected by this policy.
May justice be on the side of the citizens of Florida.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The pivotal question here is whether the searches are reasonable. To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.
On September 30, 1999, the plaintiffs sued in the Eastern District of Michigan to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of section 400.57l, arguing that the challenged Michigan law violated their Fourth Amendment rights because the required testing was done without particularized suspicion. The district court granted the injunction.
What is most interesting about this H.B. 353 that requires drug screening of all potential applicants for welfare is that of the 120 House Representatives in the State of Florida; 68% of the vote came from the GOP and 21% came from the Democratic Party with only 1% not deciding on the issue. All of the representatives from the GOP voted for this bill, while there were 2 democrats that were undecided.
Proposals for mandatory drug testing of TANF recipients are based on stereotypes and not evidence. I have included a study done by Robert E. Crew, Jr. and Belinda Creel Davis.
“Assessing the Effects of Substance Abuse Among Applicants
for TANF Benefits: The Outcome of A Demonstration Project in
Florida. Journal of Health and Social Policy.
Pilot Project for Drug Testing TANF Applicants
Currently, DCF does not drug screen any individual as a condition of eligibility for cash
assistance. From January 1999 to May 2001, DCF, in consultation with Workforce Florida, implemented a pilot project in Regions 3 and 8 to drug screen and drug test applicants for TANF.A Florida State University researcher under contract to evaluate the pilot program did not recommend continuation or statewide expansion of the project. Overall research and findings concluded that there is very little difference in employment and earnings between those who test positive versus those who test negative. Researchers concluded that the cost of the pilot program was not warranted.
So is Rick Scott a prejudice man? Not only did the analysis suggest that it should not be continued, but was also found to be unconstitutional in Michigan.
Governor Rick Scott and his Republican will be upended as the Court will once again strike down a prejudice decision made by the Republican Party.
Possible prejudicial effects of stereotypes are:
Justification of ill-founded prejudices or ignorance
Unwillingness to rethink one’s attitudes and behavior towards stereotyped group
Preventing some people of stereotyped groups from entering or succeeding in activities or fields
I understand what he is saying. I need a kidney and if it weren’t for my parents, I would need assistance too. I work and I also go to ucf. I’m glad he stood up. Not all folks on welfare are drug addicts.
What is most intriguing about this policy HB 353 that was passed by Governor Rick Scott is that it lacks circumstantial evidence to make such a proposal in favor of drug testing.
Ladies and Gentleman H.B. 353 that was passed by Governor Rick Scott is a seriously flawed policy and will be defeated.
How can any law maker take statistics from 1999 -2000 called the pilot program that was done in Region 3 & 8 and claim that this is conclusive and reflective of the 67 counties that make up the State of Florida.
Let me repeat that there are 67 counties in Florida.
Regions 3 & 8 do not make up all of Florida.
Here is where the governor loses.
You took statistics from 1999-2000. Mr. Governor this analysis is worthless and outdated.
Let me reemphasize this again. This analysis is not reflective of the 67 counties that make up all applicants of TANF. You took Region 3 & 8 statistics and made your assumption.
Another point I like to add is that the statistics from this analysis taken from Region 3 & 8 did not exceed the national average for recipients testing positive for drugs.
Let me repeat that the statistics that were used did not. I repeat did not exceed the national average.
So how can you justify such a poor decision?
Which is why he will lose in court
This situation is different than that court case. They’re not randomly testing people on welfare once they’re on it. They’re testing everybody who applies for welfare as a precondition for receiving welfare. There’s no violation of the fourth amendment in this situation.
I can end this with one simple sentence: the 2003 case will be upheld by the district court.
Orlando dude,
It doesn’t fall under search and seizure because it is setting a requirement for a program, not just searching everyone randomly. The 4th protects from the government going out and just searching anyone and everyone, these are people who went out of their way to *apply* for these programs from the government…big difference. If you want to apply for something, you are subject to its terms and conditions. There are no rights being taken away here, you don’t have a right to free money. All that is happening is that they are being told “if you want money to turn your life around, this is what you have to do.” Like when you get your drivers license, they won’t let you be drunk while taking the test…it’s not unreasonable for them to check and see if you are sober there, it is only part of the basic requirements. This isn’t about ending drug use, it is about making sure people are using these programs for the right reasons (and it looks like you copied your essay there almost word for word from an NPR article from early last year, btw). And if you’re listing government contractors and military members as high drug users, you have clearly never been around either; having been both myself I can honestly say the number of drug tests is almost overkill. Same with druggies…I grew up with them, it’s kind of the way of life – get government checks and use it for food while the other money goes to drugs, nothing ever changes. Lastly with the 3%, it wasn’t 3% of recipients, it was applicants…it doesn’t say how many druggies stopped applying because of the new requirements.
Oh, and btw, the case in 2003 was by an appellate court. How many times has something by an appellate court been overturned and deemed wrong? Really, think about it.
Actually, Jason, you are the idiot here for jumping to conclusions. There are several Supreme Court cases the confirm that those receiving social service benefits have a HIGHER due process protections (and 4th Amendment protections) due to the fact that said payments separate them from being destitute. There was also a 2003 decision that stated random drug testing of welfare recipients was unconstitutional. More likely than not, he will be found to be on the right side of the law.
The truth is this has nothing to do with drug usage, and everything to do with civil liberties. DCF and legislative staff said this program would be a waste of money because their pilot programs had shown less than 3% of recipients abused drugs, would cost too much money, and could be a violation of constitutional rights. The truth is drug usage is higher among college students, military men, government contractors, senior citizens, government contractors, and just about any other group of the general populace than their is welfare recipients. It’s pretty darn hard to buy drugs on an average family benefit of $233/months, and I don’t know many drug dealers that accept food stamps.
@Jason: I couldn’t agree more. Very well said. And I doubt he doesn’t take illegal substances. Why would he care otherwise? I’ve had to take drug tests for jobs. Since I have never taken illegal drugs, I didn’t care. I don’t care if they require 100 of them; I’ll pass every time. It makes me feel better working for a company that worries about their image. Why wouldn’t everyone want to make sure welfare money is being used responsibly?
the law is helping last i saw the application for welfare has dropped by almost 40 or 50 percent so obviously there are many drug users that were taken advantage of system.
This guy is an idiot with too much time on his hands. The object of welfare programs is to help people get out of poverty and better themselves. If they are spending their money on drugs then they are clearly not trying very hard to get out of their situation. Why should the state just give them money to fund their drug addiction when they are not doing things to improve their lifestyle (fulfilling the purpose of the program)? “everything was caving in on me” I mean really? I don’t care what your military background is, you’re not too good for the law. Welfare isn’t just supposed to be free money for anyone, it is there for a reason and this law is to make sure that reason is being upheld.