Judge: Florida worker drug testing unconstitutional POLL

Should Floridians applying for welfare benefits be required to take a drug test?

See the results »

View previous polls »

— A Miami federal judge has declared that Gov. Rick Scott's order requiring drug testing for state workers is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro ruled Thursday that blanket testing of some 85,000 workers violates the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling could eventually have an impact on a new state law also permitting random worker drug testing.

Scott's order was challenged by a labor union representing government workers and the American Civil Liberties Union. They contended that drug testing should only be done if there is a suspected problem and in safety-related and high-risk jobs.

Lawyers for the governor contend that objecting workers are free to quit and job applicants could choose to find employment elsewhere.

Scott suspended the order in June because of the lawsuit.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Stories

Comments » 12

2themoon writes:

Let me guess..an activist liberal appeals judge right??? Judge Ursala Ungaro??? Her name may as well be Sotomayor.

Mayor_McCheese writes:

in response to 2themoon:

Let me guess..an activist liberal appeals judge right??? Judge Ursala Ungaro??? Her name may as well be Sotomayor.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

She is not at all a liberal judge. She was appointed by conservative republican George H.W. Bush - remember him? Regan's VP?

You also don't seem to understand the difference between an US District Court Judge and a US Appeals Court Judge - which she is not.

You just believe that anything having to do with civil liberties must be a liberal position. Her ruling is actually a conservative interpretation of the 4th amendment.

Mayor_McCheese writes:

in response to 2themoon:

Let me guess..an activist liberal appeals judge right??? Judge Ursala Ungaro??? Her name may as well be Sotomayor.

Oh, and I forgot one more thing genius, your use of her name with 3 question marks and associating it with Justice Sotomayor (whom you obviously don't like) suggests that you are not only ignorant of the precepts of the Constitution, but that you are also a bigot. I guess since she has a Hispanic name, she must be a liberal (which in your world must be a terrible thing). I wonder if Marco Rubio would approve . . .

26yearsonmarco writes:

Well it looks like "We the People" are enjoying our Freedom of Speech on this subject, but not on the Obama visit:

• Michelle Obama visit: 3-hour tour ends Updated 4/27/2012 at 5:00 p.m. 72 comments
• Comments » Disabled by the Naplesnews.com

First lady’s visit today not expected to impact residents’ day-to-day activities
Comments » Disabled by Marconews.com

happy34145 writes:

in response to Mayor_McCheese:

Oh, and I forgot one more thing genius, your use of her name with 3 question marks and associating it with Justice Sotomayor (whom you obviously don't like) suggests that you are not only ignorant of the precepts of the Constitution, but that you are also a bigot. I guess since she has a Hispanic name, she must be a liberal (which in your world must be a terrible thing). I wonder if Marco Rubio would approve . . .

There you liberals go again labeling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot or a racist or ..the newest one..a 'woman hater'. You people are so transparent, I said she may as well be Sotomeyer for her liberal stance to protect government union workers. Private companies can screen their employees as much as they want but yet again the coveted government employee get yet another 'free pass'. America is sick of carrying the tab of these over paid over protected govt' employees and frankly we're sick of idiot name calling liberals like yourself.

happy6 writes:

HEY MAYOR...private industry drug tests all the time...why not government...why are they immune from testing...lets see..atheletes,drivers,pilots,water plant workers,bar tenders, ....just keep naming 'em...list goes on forever.

2themoon writes:

Shadow and Happy have hit the head on the nail! Again we see the protection of the government employee. Too bad the private American employee of this great nation doesn't get the support of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government like the government employee does.
BTW: Mayor ' Mcknow it all' you are a Liberal labeling fool.

OldMarcoMan writes:

The Eagle takes comments on this and they shut down the Comment Function on Obamba ?
Worst NewsPaper EVER !!!!

dc5799 writes:

Anyone testing the judges?

26yearsonmarco writes:

in response to OldMarcoMan:

The Eagle takes comments on this and they shut down the Comment Function on Obamba ?
Worst NewsPaper EVER !!!!

If you think our Freedom of Speech is in trouble now, just wait and see what happens if Obamee is reelected!!

26yearsonmarco writes:

Another aspect of this story is the fact that Florida is a “Right to Work” State that helps keep Union intrusion into the private sector employers, but most Government Employees are Union which makes little sense to me, unless you consider, Florida is also a “Work at Will” State, which prevents employees in the private sector from suing their employers for things such as a stress related illness brought on by over bearing work conditions.
There is no happy medium.

Mayor_McCheese writes:

in response to happy34145:

There you liberals go again labeling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot or a racist or ..the newest one..a 'woman hater'. You people are so transparent, I said she may as well be Sotomeyer for her liberal stance to protect government union workers. Private companies can screen their employees as much as they want but yet again the coveted government employee get yet another 'free pass'. America is sick of carrying the tab of these over paid over protected govt' employees and frankly we're sick of idiot name calling liberals like yourself.

Why do you think that the 4th amendment is a liberal issue? She is a conservative judge appointed by a conservative president who made a conservative ruling.

I think you are a bit confused. The conservative position here is not to drug test everyone, only people in positions where if they were on drugs they could be a danger to the public - like pilots, train engineers, air traffic controllers, etc. The liberal view would be to drug test everyone - getting the government into everyone's personal business.

That's why she ruled that way. She was being consistent with a conservative ideology (Ron Paul would strongly agree with this perspective). The law she struck down was over-broad (liberal).

It is NOT a conservative view to drug test everyone who works for the government. Quite the opposite.

Private employers have nothing to do with this ruling. They can do anything they like without regard to the 4th Amendment because their employees can consent to those conditions (which most public employees an not).

I'm not calling names, just making the point that many people would confuse the drug testing issue with lax drug policy when in fact it is a civil liberties issue that fits squarely in the conservative camp.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features