Defendant Basinger's Statement Regarding His Refusal to Take a Court Ordered Drug Test - x

8/11/2019 Defendant Basinger's Statement Regarding His Refusal to Take a Court Ordered Drug Test - x

1/18

Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding

#age 1o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The defendants (William H. Basinger) statement regarding his refusal to

take a court ordered warrantless drug test in the o!! ount" #rug

ourts drug test la! !ased on hearsa" $ the defendant holds that it is a

%iolation of his rights under the &' onstitution and that it is a %iolation of

the ederal ules of i%il *rocedure ule +,. (!)(-)()(/00) for the ourt tohold him in contemt and continuall" threaten him in a terroristic manner

with incarceration and with ermanent loss of his child for refusing to

allow the court to end run his constitutional rights.

&'e de$endant ()i!!iam H. Basinger* made a strong argument to t'e Court and t'e

d +item in riting (a$ter - po!ite reuests over - mont's* t'at it as 'is

constitutiona! !iberty rig't under t'e 1-t'amendment to be ab!e to see 'is daug'ter

more t'an t'e court a!!oed - days per mont' (and to 'ave summer visitation

'ic' t'e court 'ad neg!ected to address* during 'at as becoming an

outrageous temporary period (pendency* o$ 1/ mont's since t'e !ing $or divorce.

&'e courts anser to 'is reuest as to order an emergency 'earing against 'imit'out a!!oing 'im any preparation time or itnesses 'ic' ended it' t'e Court

taing aay 'is visitation rig'ts it' 'is daug'ter tota!!y using 'earsay to accuse

t'e de$endant o$ $e!ony sta!ing and t'reats against t'e p!ainti. &'e de$endant

became visib!e upset t'at t'e court, based on t'e p!aintis 'earsay a!one, as

taing 'is c'i!d and $a!se!y accusing 'im o$ $e!onies. 4pon observing t'at t'e

de$endant as upset it' t'e un$airness o$ t'e courts actions, t'e court $urt'er

ordered 'im to tae a arrant!ess drug test in t'e court'ouse under t'e same

conditions as $e!ons in drug court (deputies observe privates during samp!ing and

any positive tests are an admission o$ gui!t o$ drug use resu!ting in crimina! c'arges*

and to a!so tae a 51600 psyc'o!ogica! eva!uation 'ere t'e de$endant as ordered

to sign aay 'is privacy rig'ts so t'e ad !item ou!d be ab!e to 'ave e7%parte

communications it' t'e psyc'o!ogist regarding menta! 'ea!t' records, menta!

'eart' or product, a!!o 'im to give 'is opinion to try to s!ant t'e psyc'o!ogist

report ('ic' 'e did* and mae 'is on summary out o$ conte7t to use instead o$

t'e o8cia! report in order to support 'is on position % reta!iation against t'e

de$endant $or 'aving previous!y accused t'e ad !item o$ not doing 'is due di!igence

upon discovery t'at none o$ t'e de$endants itnesses ere to be intervieed.

9&'e maers o$ our Constitution understood t'e need to secure conditions $avorab!e to t'e pursuit o$ 'appiness,

and t'e protections guaranteed by t'is are muc' broader in scope, and inc!ude t'e rig't to !i$e and an invio!ate

persona!ity %% t'e rig't to be !e$t a!one %% t'e most compre'ensive o$ rig'ts and t'e rig't most va!ued by civi!i:ed

men. &'e princip!e under!ying t'e ;ourt' and ;i$t' mendments is protection against invasions o$ t'e sanctities o$ aman


2/18


#age -o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

itse!$ presents to additiona! vio!ations% an invasion o$ t'e de$endants privacy

(direct!y observed urine samp!ing* and a $t' amendment vio!ation against se!$%

incrimination (e.g. gui!ty o$ drug possession i$ drugs detected in urine regard!ess o$

t'e $act t'at t'ere is no medica! doctor or medica! o8cer present to distinguis' or

interpret prescribed medicines and t'eir associated metabo!ites $rom primary andsecondary i!!icit or $ae scripted actives*. &'ere is a constitutiona!!y re!evant

distinction beteen someone 'o 'as been convicted o$ a crime and someone 'o

is an ordinary citi:en or one 'o 'as been mere!y accused o$ a crime but is sti!!

presumed innocent % to over!oo t'is distinction Dies in t'e $ace o$ bot' common

sense and binding case !a. &o 'o!d t'e de$endant in contempt $or re$using to tae

a arrant!essF drug court typeF urine drug test is a!so in vio!ation o$ t'e ederal

ules of i%il *rocedure ule +,. (!)(-)()(/00)2 which em!odies the 3thand

4thamendments and was adoted !" the 'tate of 5eorgia along with the

ederal ules of 6%idence. &'ere$ore as a matter o$ princip!e and rig'teousness

t'e de$endant re$uses, it' a!! due respect to t'e Superior Court o$ Cobb County, to

$or$eit, aive or a!!o 'is Constitutiona! rig'ts to be end run by t'e State (asrepresented by t'e Superior Court o$ Cobb Co.*, even t'oug' t'e State ie!ds a

'eavy eig't t'at 'o!ds t'e custody o$ 'is daug'ter, care o$ 'is 'andicapped son,

'is ob and t'reats o$ 'is incarceration !opsided in t'e ba!ance against 'im. )'at

may appear e7pedient in t'is case is not ort' t'e cost t'at t'is particu!ar practice

by t'e State e7acts on t'e rig'ts o$ a!! $ree men % i$ !e$t unc'a!!enged t'ere may

soon be on!y be a isp o$ dust in p!ace o$ t'e !etters t'at once eig'ed 'eavy on

t'e paper o$ our great Constitution.

&'e specic grievances o$ t'e @e$endant are as $o!!osG

1* ?t is against t'e $t' amendment (rig't against se!$ incrimination* and t'e

7unconstitutional conditions7 doctrine to order a $ree citi:en to drug

test based on 'earsay and 'ave t'e order to do so !everaged against t'e

continued !oss o$ visitation (custody* it' 'is minor c'i!d and t'reat o$

incarceration by being 'e!d in contempt.2* &o 'o!d t'e de$endant in contempt $or re$using to tae a arrant!essF drug

court typeF urine drug test is in vio!ation o$ t'e ederal ules of i%il

*rocedure ule +,. (!)(-)()(/00)2 which em!odies the 3thand 4th

amendments and was adoted !" the 'tate of 5eorgia as a

necessar" art of the ederal ules of 6%idence.

3* 4n!ie paro!ees and @rug Court participants, t'e @e$endant 'as not $or$eitednor aived 'is -t' amendment rig'ts to searc' and sei:ure (submitting urine

sample for testing* nor 'is rig't to privacy (direct observation of Defendant

while he is sampling by deputies with his pants down to knees - ankles*, nor

'as 'e aived nor $or$eited 'is $t' amendment rig't against se!$%

incrimination (e.g. guilty of possession if positive detection is determined all

without the interpretation by a medical ocer - can be construed as self

incrimination in light of the odds of a positive test result*.


3/18


#age +o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

-* &'e taing o$ a urine samp!e $or drug testing is considered a searc' by t'e 4S

Supreme Court 'ic' is a vio!ation o$ a $ree citi:ens - t' amendment rig'ts.* @irect observation o$ t'e de$endants privates during urine samp!ing and

submission (deputies observe t'e de$endants samp!ing it' de$endants

pants don to 'is an!es* is essentia! $or crimina! ustice or @rug Court drug

test !abs but it constitutes an invasion o$ privacy $or a $ree citi:en and is

t'ere$ore unconstitutiona!. &'is step, even in t'e a!!oed sense $or paro!ees

and drug court participants, reuires t'at t'e observers and t'e donor be o$

t'e same gender % 'ic' is not a!ays t'e case $or $ema!es being tested in

Cobb county. 4pon entry into t'e drug court program, participants are

reuired to e7ecute a ritten agreement to comp!y it' t'e drug court

program drug testing reuirements, inc!uding t'e submission o$ observed

urine samp!es. #aro!ees $or$eited t'eir rig't as a condition o$ t'eir paro!e.

;ree citi:ens, suc' as t'e de$endant, 'ave not surrendered nor $or$eited t'ese

rig'ts.

I* @e$endant 'as not, and 'as never been, c'arged, convicted o$ a crime,arrested or even $orma!!y c'arged it' a crime, especia!!y one t'at pertains

to drug use.6* o probab!e cause 'as been estab!is'ed % even i$ de$endant 'as been

$orma!!y c'arged by a peace o8cer it' a crime ('ic' 'e 'as not*./* Hearsay testimony by t'e p!ainti, 'ic' is not a probab!e cause evidentiary

standard, as presented to t'e court, it'out any evidentiary proo$, a!! $or

t'e so!e purpose o$ negative!y aecting t'e de$endants custody it' regards

to t'e minor c'i!d and causing t'e @e$endant embarrassment in pub!ic.>* &'ere are no estab!is'ed cuto standards $or detection o$ drugs !ie t'at e7ist

$or orp!ace (civi!ian*, government or mi!itary % it is usua!!y eit'er positive or

negative.10* &'e drug testing resu!ts are used $or a dierent purpose in t'e crimina!

ustice system t'ey are used $or prosecution, supervision o$ a de$endants

comp!iance, probation, pre%tria! re!ease or as in drug courts case % monitoring

a participants comp!iance. ?t is unconstitutiona! to use t'e drug testing

resu!ts o$ a $ree citi:en $or purposes a!igned it' !a en$orcement. ?t is not a

specia! case as !aid out by t'e supreme court and constitutes -t'and t'

amendment vio!ations.11* &'e drug testing resu!ts, and any medica! in$ormation contained, taen

in t'e process o$ drug testing it'in t'e crimina! ustice system are not

protected against access by t'e crimina! ustice system and per'aps not evenprotected against access by t'e pub!ic in genera! 'ic' raise more issues o$

privacy and privi!eged medica! in$ormation re!ease vio!ations.12* ?t is a source o$ great embarrassment and 'umi!iation $or t'e

@e$endant to 'ave to submit to observed samp!ing and testing.13* &'e @e$endant 'o!ds a @E persona! and site !icense to or it',

synt'esis and store contro!!ed substances and a $orced drug test in a !a


4/18


#age 3o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

en$orcement drug test $aci!ity can resu!t in t'e !oss o$ t'e @e$endants !icense

and prevent 'im $rom oring in t'e $uture.1-* o contro! on t'e circu!ation o$ t'e resu!ts in paper or in !a

en$orcement data bases bot' o$ 'ic' can 'arm t'e de$endants rig't to

or and 'ave a ob in t'e $uture.1* More time aay $rom or (a!ready a maor issue*.1I* o promise $rom t'e Court t'at t'e @e$endant i!! be given a copy o$

t'e resu!ts.16* umerous test resu!ts $rom drug tests a!ready taen t'is year (it'in

t'e !ast severa! mont's* by t'e de$endant at 'is doctors o8ce ('ic' are

vo!untary $or @E diversion purposes and are protected under statutory and

H?# regu!ations* ere submitted on good $ait' to t'e ad !item. &'e

de$endant is sc'edu!ed to tae anot'er drug test at 'is doctors o8ce on Ju!y

1It'.1/* &'e p!ainti and 'er attorney particu!ar c'ose drug abuse, abuse and

menta! instabi!ity as t'e p!at$orm $or !ing 'er divorce suit because t'ose aret'e t'ree t'ings t'at most inDuence c'i!d custody. &'e p!ainti is e!! aare

t'at t'e @e$endant is not a drug abuser and is on!y pursuing it to embarrass

t'e @e$endant and eep t'e minor c'i!d t'at 'e raised $rom 'im even t'oug'

'e as t'e primary caregiver o$ t'e minor c'i!d $or seven years % 'ic'

inc!uded up unti! t'e day s'e !ed.

4nder t'e ;ort' mendment, ordinary or $ree citi:ens, citi:ens accused under civi!

!a, citi:ens accused under crimina! !a (pre%tria! presumption o$ innocence* and

even e7%convicts are a!! aorded t'e probab!e causeF evidentiary standard a

strict evidentiary standard t'at 'as to be overcome be$ore t'ey, andKor t'eir

property, can be subected to searc' and sei:ure, 'ereas #aro!ees andparticipants in @rug Court programs are on!y aorded t'e !esser reasonab!e

suspicionF evidentiary standard (e.g. 'earsay* a muc' reduced evidentiary

standard to be overcome be$ore t'ey andKor t'eir property can be subected to

searc' and sei:ure. &'e same principa! app!ies to t'e rig't to privacy, and in some

cases, t'e $t' amendment rig't against se!$%incrimination. #articipants in @rug

Court and prison paro!ees are bot' 'e!d to a reduced !eve! o$ ;ourt' mendment

rig'ts because t'e participants o$ @rug Court in essence p!ead gui!ty to drug

c'arges t'ey ere accused o$ and accepted t'e @rug Court program in !ieu o$ prison

time. &'e Constitution does not distinguis' beteen t'ose accused and t'ose not

accused 'erein ;ourt' mendment rig'ts are concerned. &'ere$ore, i$ t'e

government discriminates based on pre%tria! re!easees and ordinary citi:ens, t'e

conditions must t'en be rationa!!y re!ated to t'e important interest o$ t'e state

t'e 4S Supreme Court 'as estab!is'ed a !ist o$ specia! interests in 'ic' t'is can be

up'e!d% t'ese inc!udeG train conductors, !a en$orcement 'o carry rearms,

persons entrusted it' nationa! security interests and !a en$orcement invo!ved in

drug interdiction on t'e borders o$ t'e 4S. &'e $undamenta! rig'ts granted in t'e

Constitution are t'e essence o$ our nation and t'e Supreme Court 'as a!ays


5/18


#age 4o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

moved to preserve t'em. &'e state, in every instance not given e7p!icit!y by t'e 4S

Supreme Court, must go t'roug' t'e 4S Supreme Court and prove t'at t'e

compe!!ing state interest substantia!!y outeig's t'e $undamenta! rig't o$ an

individua! to be $ree $rom unreasonab!e searc'es and sei:ures any argument

'ic' invo!ves any para!!e!s to t'e motives o$ !a en$orcement is not su8cient.&'ere must be a compe!!ing specia! reasonF t'at is narro!y tai!ored to t'e states

interest as to 'y a $ree citi:en s'ou!d be reuired to aive 'is ;ourt' mendment

rig'ts and tae a drug test in order to $orego t'e !oss o$ custody o$ de$endants

daug'ter or imprisonment $or contempt.

The ourth mendment (mendment 0/) to the &nited 'tates onstitution

is t'e part o$ t'e Bi!! o$ Lig'ts 'ic' guards $ree ordinary citi:ens against

unreasonab!e searc'es ('ic' inc!udes drug testing* and sei:ures, a!ong it'

reuiring any arrant to be udicia!!y sanctioned and supported by probab!e cause.

Searc' and sei:ure (inc!uding arrest, samp!es $or drug testing, etc.* are to be !imited

in scope according to specic in$ormation supp!ied to t'e issuing court, usua!!y by apeace or !a en$orcement o8cer, 'o 'as sorn by it. &'e ;ourt' mendment

app!ies to t'e states, inc!uding t'e state o$ "eorgia, by ay o$ t'e @ue #rocess

C!ause o$ t'e ;ourteent' mendment to t'e 4nited States Constitution.

Le!ie$ Soug't by @e$endantG to acate =rders t'at reuire t'e de$endant to 'ave a

drug screen, psyc'o!ogica! e7am, not 'ave to be made to sign aay H?## and

State +a rig'ts to privacy during psyc'o!ogica! assessment eorts 'ere

treatment is pre%specied or intended.

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

RULE 37. FAILURE TO MAKE DISCLOSURES OR TO COOPERATE IN DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS

(*T ! onl")

(b) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER.

(1) Sanctions in the District Where the Deposition Is Taken. If the court where the !"co#er$ !" t%&e'

orer" % eo'e't to be "wor' or to %'"wer % ue"t!o' %' the eo'e't f%!*" to obe$+ the f%!*ure ,%$ be

tre%te %" co'te,t of court.

(-) Sanctions in the District Where the Action Is Pending.


6/18


#age o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

(A)For Not Obeying a Discovery Order.If % %rt$ or % %rt$" off!cer+ !rector+ or ,%'%/!'/ %/e't0or

% w!t'e"" e"!/'%te u'erRu*e 2(b)(3)or 1(%)(4)0f%!*" to obe$ %' orer to ro#!e or er,!t

!"co#er$+ !'c*u!'/ %' orer u'erRu*e -3(f)+5+ or6(%)+the court where the %ct!o' !" e'!'/ ,%$

!""ue further 7u"t orer". The$ ,%$ !'c*ue the fo**ow!'/8

(!) !rect!'/ th%t the ,%tter" e,br%ce !' the orer or other e"!/'%te f%ct" be t%&e' %" e"t%b*!"hefor uro"e" of the %ct!o'+ %" the re#%!*!'/ %rt$ c*%!,"9

(!!) roh!b!t!'/ the !"obe!e't %rt$ fro, "uort!'/ or oo"!'/ e"!/'%te c*%!," or efe'"e"+ or

fro, !'trouc!'/ e"!/'%te ,%tter" !' e#!e'ce9

(!!!) "tr!&!'/ *e%!'/" !' who*e or !' %rt9

(!#) "t%$!'/ further rocee!'/" u't!* the orer !" obe$e9

(#) !",!""!'/ the %ct!o' or rocee!'/ !' who*e or !' %rt9

(#!) re'er!'/ % ef%u*t 7u/,e't %/%!'"t the !"obe!e't %rt$9 or

(#!!) tre%t!'/ %" co'te,t of court the f%!*ure to obe$ %'$ orer except%' orer to "ub,!t to %h$"!c%* or ,e't%* e:%,!'%t!o'.;

OL4+E 36. (b* (2*(*(??* =; &HE ;E@EL+ L4+ES =; C??+ #L=CE@4LE


Binding Case +a


erguson %. harleston2 4+- &' , 9 'ureme ourt -::1

&'e maority stated t'at t'e @istrict Court 'ad made suc' a nding. 1/I ;.3d, at -66. &'e te7t o$ t'e re!evant nding, made in t'e conte7t o$petitioners< no abandoned &it!e ? c!aim, reads as $o!!osG 9&'e po!icy asapp!ied in a!! maternity departments at M4SC. ?ts goa! as not to arrest
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37#rule_30_b_6http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37#rule_30_b_6http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37#rule_31_a_4http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37#rule_26_fhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37#rule_26_fhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_35http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_35http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37#rule_37_ahttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37#rule_37_ahttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37#rule_37_ahttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37#rule_31_a_4http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37#rule_26_fhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_35http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37#rule_37_ahttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37#rule_30_b_6


7/18


#age ,o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

patients but to $aci!itate t'eir treatment and protect bot' t'e mot'er andunborn c'i!d.9 pp. to #et. $or Cert. %3/. &'at nding, 'oever, must beread in !ig't o$ t'is comment by t'e @istrict Court it' respect to t'e ;ourt'mendment c!aimG

9. . . &HESE SELCHES )ELE =& @=E BP &HE ME@?C+ 4?ELS?&P ;=L?@E#E@E& #4L#=SES. ?; &HEP H@ BEE, &HE &HEP )=4+@ =&?M#+?C&E &HE ;=4L&H ME@ME&. =B?=4S+P S ? #=?& =4& &HELE =#"E -, =LM++P 4L?E SCLEES @ B+==@ &ES&S @ &H& &P#E =;&H?" C BE &QE BP HE+&H CLE #L=?@ELS )?&H=4& H?" &=)=LLP B=4& &HE ;=4L&H ME@ME&. &HE =+P LES= &HE ;=4L&HME@ME& ?S ?M#+?C&E@ HELE ?S &H& &HE #=+?CE CME ? @ &HELE)S "LEEME& LECHE@ &H& &HE #=S?&?E SCLEES )=4+@ BESHLE@ )?&H &HE #=+?CE. @ &HE &HE SCLEE ?S =& @=E?@E#E@E& =; #=+?CE, ?&.

Lespondents argue in essence t'at t'eir u!timate purposeRname!y,protecting t'e 'ea!t' o$ bot' mot'er and c'i!dRis a benecent one. ?nC'and!er, 'oever, e did not simp!y accept t'e State


8/18


#age 8o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

concurring* (citing 4nited States v. Bac'ner, 60I ;.2d 1121, 112I (11t' Cir.1>/3**T &'e main issue eva!uated by t'e court as 'et'er t'e governmentcan induce a de$endant re!eased on 'is on recogni:ance and aaiting tria!,to aive 'is ;ourt' mendment rig'ts and subect 'im to anyt'ing !ess t'anprobab!e cause concerning searc'es and sei:ures. -&'e court decided t'isuestion in t'e negative.&'is issue as one o$ rst impression in t'e $edera!circuit courts and in t'e maority o$ t'e state courts. &'e maority decisionas to to one.I&'e ;ourt' mendment grants individua!s t'e rig't to be$ree $rom unreasonab!e searc'es and sei:ures by t'e government. 6;edera!and state cases genera!!y address t'e aiver o$ ;ourt' mendment rig'ts ast'ey re!ate to probationers and post tria! sentencing re!easees. &'e maorityvies pre%tria! re!easees as 9presumed innocent9 it' rig'ts simi!ar toordinary citi:ens and very dierent $rom t'ose individua!s convicted o$crimes, 'o are conseuent!y subect to a probab!e cause standard./&'e@issent be!ieves, 'oever, t'e pre%tria! re!easee does not enoy t'e same

rig'ts as an ordinary citi:en, but instead enoys rig'ts simi!ar to probationersand pre%sentencing re!easees.>&'e @issent asserts pre%tria! re!easees arec'arged it' a crime, and are t'ere$ore, not ordinary citi:ens. &'e conditionsp!aced on t'eir re!ease are in !ieu o$ being detained and 'e!d in ai!.&'ere$ore, according to t'e @issent t'ey s'ou!d be subect to t'e reasonab!esuspicion standard, rat'er t'an t'e probab!e cause standard.10&'is casenote i!! e7amine (1* 'et'er pre%tria! re!easees s'ou!d be aorded morerig'ts t'an t'e probationer, pre%sentencing re!easee and paro!eeA (2*'et'er pre%tria! re!easees s'ou!d be subect to searc'es and sei:ures basedon probab!e cause or reasonab!e suspicionA (3* 'et'er t'e governments'ou!d be ab!e to induce t'e aiver o$ t'e pre%tria! re!easee


9/18


#age , 12> +.Ed.2d 30- (1>>-*, !imits t'e government


10/18


11/18


#age 11o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1-91-0/, @ate ;i!edG 0K2>K2013 @.C. @ocet o. 1G11%cv%21>6I%44

ppea! $rom t'e 4nited States @istrict Court $or t'e Sout'ern @istrict o$;!orida (May 2>, 2013*

Be$ore MLC4S, B+CQ and S?+EL,O Circuit Judges. MLC4S, Circuit JudgeG OHonorab!e Eugene E. Si!er, Jr., 4nited States Circuit Judge $or t'e Si7t'Circuit, sitting by designation.

E!event' Circuit ;edera! Circuit ppea!s Court ru!ed against ;!orida and"eorgia by incorpationT on drug testing it'out t'e supreme court assignedspecia! needs, as it is considered a searc' under t'e -t'amendmentF

(&T'e Supreme Court 'as uneuivoca!!y stated t'at it is t'e state 'ic'must s'o a substantia! specia! need to usti$y its drug testing.F*. s t'econcurring opinion in +ebron noted, iTt is undisputed t'at a drug test is asearc' under t'e ;ourt' mendment, and t'at t'e government genera!!y 'ast'e burden o$ usti$ying a arrant!ess searc'.F ?d. at 121> (Jordan, J.,concurring* (citing 4nited States v. Bac'ner, 60I ;.2d 1121, 112I (11t' Cir.1>/3**A accord id. (e7p!aining t'at t'e government 'as t'e burden o$estab!is'ing a Vspecia! need $or a arrant!ess and suspicion!ess drug testingreuirement.F*WW..F in C'and!er, t'e Court stated, )Te note, rst, t'at t'etesting met'od t'e "eorgia statute describes is re!ative!y noninvasiveAt'ere$ore, i$ t'e Vspecia! needs s'oing 'ad been made, t'e State cou!d notbe $au!ted $or e7cessive intrusion.F 20 4.S. at 31/A accord id. ("eorgia 'as$ai!ed to s'o, in ustication o$ its drug testing statuteT, a specia! need o$t'at ind.F*. &'ese passages imp!y t'at t'e burden rests it' t'e proponento$ t'e testing po!icy to come $orard it' evidence o$ a specia! need. &'is istrue even t'oug' bot' cases ere civi! !asuits in 'ic' t'e p!aintisc'a!!enged t'e testing and t'us bore t'e u!timate burden o$ persuasion.)'at 'appened in t'ose cases is t'at t'e p!aintis met t'eir initia! burden,and t'e burden o$ production t'en s'i$ted to t'e government to demonstratea specia! need su8cient!y important to outeig' t'e p!aintis privacyinterests.F WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWFon Laabs 'o!dingmaes it c!ear t'at t'ose emp!oyees present t'e type o$ serious sa$ety rist'at usties suspicion!ess drug testingWWW rst, t'ose direct!y invo!ved in

drug interdictionA second, t'ose 'o carried rearmsA and t'ird, t'ose 'o'and!ed c!assied materia!. -/> 4.S. at II0%I1. &'e Court began byidenti$ying t'e governments specia! needs it' regard to t'e rst tocategories. ?d. at II/. Customs emp!oyees responsib!e $or drug interdictionere e7posed to t'eT crimina! e!ement and to t'e contro!!ed substances itsoug'tT to smugg!e into t'e countryFA t'e Customs Service as concernednot on!y about t'ose emp!oyees p'ysica! sa$etyF but a!so t'e ris o$ briberyor corruption. See id. at II>. &'us, t'e Supreme Court $ound t'at t'e


12/18


#age 1-o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

"overnment 'adT a compe!!ing interest in ensuring t'at $ront%!ineinterdiction personne! eTre p'ysica!!y t, and 'adT unimpeac'ab!eintegrity and udgment.F ?d. at I60. Simi!ar !ogic app!ied to t'ose 'o carriedrearms. Emp!oyees 'o may use dead!y $orce p!ain!y disc'arge duties$raug't it' suc' riss o$ inury to ot'ers t'at even a momentary !apse o$attention can 'ave disastrous conseuences.F ?d. (interna! uotation marsomitted*. s $or t'e privacy interests imp!icated by t'e searc', t'e SupremeCourt began by noting t'at certain $orms o$ pub!ic emp!oyment maydiminis' privacy e7pectations even it' respect to suc' persona! searc'es.F?d. at I61. &'e Court e7p!ained t'at, uTn!ie most private citi:ens orgovernment emp!oyees in genera!, emp!oyees invo!ved in drug interdictionreasonab!y s'ou!d e7pect eective inuiry into t'eir tness and probity.Muc' t'e same is true o$ emp!oyees 'o are reuired to carry rearms.F ?d.at I62. Because success$u! per$ormance o$ t'eir duties depends uniue!y ont'eir udgment and de7terity, t'ese emp!oyees cannot reasonab!y e7pect to

eep $rom t'e Service persona! in$ormation t'at bears direct!y on t'eirtness,F and t'us t'eir privacy cou!d not outeig' t'e "overnmentscompe!!ing interests in sa$ety and in t'e integrity o$ our borders.F ?d.FWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.F s $or t'e students at'!etesT privacyinterests, t'e Court noted t'at t'e students by denition ere (1* c'i!dren,'o (2* 'ave been committed to t'e temporary custody o$ t'e State assc'oo!master.F ernonia, 1 4.S. at I-. &'e State, acting in !oco parentis,e7ercised a degree o$ supervision and contro! t'at cou!d not be e7ercisedover $ree adu!ts.F ?d. at IA see Ear!s, 3I 4.S. at /31. WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.?ncontrast to t'e preceding cases, t'e Supreme Court reected a "eorgia

statute t'at reuired a!! candidates $or certain state o8ces to submit to adrug test at a time o$ t'eir c'oosing prior to t'e e!ection. See C'and!er, 204.S. at 30>%10. "eorgia attempted to usti$y its po!icy based on t'eincompatibi!ity o$ un!a$u! drug use it' 'o!ding 'ig' state o8ce,Fcontending t'at i!!ega! drug use dras into uestion an o8cia!s udgmentand integrityF and eopardi:es t'e disc'arge o$ pub!ic $unctions.F ?d. at 31/.&'e Court dismissed t'ese broad and genera! rationa!es, nding nTotab!y!acing . . . any indication o$ a concrete danger demanding departure $romt'e ;ourt' mendments main ru!e.F ?d. at 31/%1>. 4n!ie t'e rai!roademp!oyees in Sinner or t'e !a en$orcement o8cers in on Laab, t'e"eorgiaT o8cia!s typica!!y didT not per$orm 'ig'%ris, sa$ety%sensitive tass,

and t'e reuired certication immediate!y aidedT no interdiction eort.F ?d.at 321%22. )orse sti!!, "eorgias testing program as not even e!!%cra$ted todetect drug use, since t'e candidates t'emse!ves sc'edu!ed t'e drug testand cou!d easi!y evade a positive resu!t. ?d. at 31>%20. &'e Supreme Courtt'ere$ore 'ad !itt!e troub!e dec!aring t'is po!icy unconstitutiona!.


13/18


#age 1+o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Main E7cerpts

&o begin it', a pane! o$ t'is Court in +ebron 'e!d t'at t'e burden o$producing t'e specia!%needs s'oing rests it' t'e State. See 610 ;.3d at

1211 n.I (&T'e Supreme Court 'as uneuivoca!!y stated t'at it is t'e state'ic' must s'o a substantia! specia! need to usti$y its drug testing.F*. st'e concurring opinion in +ebron noted, iTt is undisputed t'at a drug test isa searc' under t'e ;ourt' mendment, and t'at t'e government genera!!y'as t'e burden o$ usti$ying a arrant!ess searc'.F ?d. at 121> (Jordan, J.,concurring* (citing 4nited States v. Bac'ner, 60I ;.2d 1121, 112I (11t' Cir.1>/3**A accord id. (e7p!aining t'at t'e government 'as t'e burden o$estab!is'ing a Vspecia! need $or a arrant!ess and suspicion!ess drug testingreuirement.F*. nd a!t'oug' t'ere is scant aut'ority outside t'is Circuitdiscussing t'e distribution o$ burdens in suspicion!ess drug testing cases, t'[email protected]. Circuit 'as observed t'at, aT!t'oug' neit'er on Laab nor Sinnerdirect!y addressed t'is uestion, on Laab may 'int t'at t'e burden restsit' t'e government.F m. ;edn o$ "ovt Emps. v. Sinner, // ;.2d //-,/>- (@.C. Cir. 1>/>*.F

?ndeed, t'e re!evant Supreme Court cases suggest t'at t'e governmentbears t'e burden o$ producing t'e specia!%needs s'oing once t'e p!ainti'as made an initia! s'oing o$ an unconstitutiona! searc'. ?n on Laab, $ore7amp!e, t'e Supreme Court conc!uded t'at t'e "overnment 'asdemonstrated t'at its compe!!ing interests in sa$eguarding our borders andt'e pub!ic sa$ety outeig' t'e privacy e7pectations o$ emp!oyees.F -/> 4.S.at I66 (emp'asis added*. Simi!ar!y, in C'and!er, t'e Court stated, )Te

note, rst, t'at t'e testing met'od t'e "eorgia statute describes is re!ative!ynoninvasiveA t'ere$ore, i$ t'e Vspecia! needs s'oing 'ad been made, t'eState cou!d not be $au!ted $or e7cessive intrusion.F 20 4.S. at 31/A accordid. ("eorgia 'as $ai!ed to s'o, in ustication o$ its drug testing statuteT, aspecia! need o$ t'at ind.F*. &'ese passages imp!y t'at t'e burden rests it't'e proponent o$ t'e testing po!icy to come $orard it' evidence o$ aspecia! need. &'is is true even t'oug' bot' cases ere civi! !asuits in 'ic't'e p!aintis c'a!!enged t'e testing and t'us bore t'e u!timate burden o$persuasion. )'at 'appened in t'ose cases is t'at t'e p!aintis met t'eirinitia! burden, and t'e burden o$ production t'en s'i$ted to t'e governmentto demonstrate a specia! need su8cient!y important to outeig' t'e

p!aintis privacy interests.Moreover, t'is burden%s'i$ting $rameor $o!!os direct!y $rom ;ed. L Evid.301, 'ic' states t'at, iTn a civi! case . . . t'e party against 'om apresumption is directed 'as t'e burden o$ producing evidence to rebut t'epresumption.F =nce a X 1>/3 p!ainti proves t'at t'e ;ourt' mendmentsordinary reuirements 'ave not been met, e presume t'at a searc' isunconstitutiona!. C$. "ro' v. Lamire:, -0 4.S. 1, I- (200-* (since a 'omesearc' ordinari!y reuires a arrant, a arrant!ess searc' o$ t'e 'ome is


14/18


#age 13o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

presumptive!y unconstitutiona!F*. &'en, t'e government, 'ic' is t'e partyagainst 'om t'e presumption is directed, must mae a su8cient!y poer$u!s'oing to usti$y its intrusion on t'e p!aintis e7pectation o$ privacy.Consistent it' t'e genera! ru!e in X 1>/3 cases, ;ed. L. Evid. 301 does nots'i$t t'e burden o$ persuasion, 'ic' remains on t'e party 'o 'ad itorigina!!y.F

S'i$ting t'e burden o$ production to t'e government to usti$y a arrant!esssearc' is a $ami!iar $eature o$ X 1>/3 civi! !asuits raising ;ourt' mendmentc!aims. &'us, $or e7amp!e, 'en a p!ainti asserts t'at t'e po!ice conductedan unconstitutiona! arrant!ess searc', and t'e government c!aims t'at itssearc' as !ega! under an e7ception to t'e arrant reuirement, ot'ercourts o$ appea!s 'ave 'e!d t'at t'e p!ainti meets its initia! burden bydemonstrating t'e absence o$ a searc' arrant. t t'at point, it is t'egovernment t'at bears t'e burden o$ coming $orard it' evidence t'at ane7ception to t'e arrant reuirement app!ied. See @er v. Conno!!y, III ;.3d

1120, 1126%2/ Y n.2 (/t' Cir. 2012* ('en X 1>/3 p!ainti s'os a searc' ispresumptive!y vio!ative o$ t'e ;ourt' mendment, t'e government 'as t'eburden o$ going $orard it' evidence to meet or rebut t'e presumption,Fe.g., evidence o$ consent or o$ some ot'er recogni:ed e7ceptionF*A a!ancev. )ise!, 110 ;.3d 12I>, 126> (6t' Cir. 1>>6*A Luggiero v. Qr:eminsi, >2/;.2d /, I3 (2d Cir. 1>>1*.

;ina!!y, t'is a!!ocation o$ burdens maes sense. &'e proponent o$ testing ist'e party best positioned to come $orard it' its reasons $or conductingsuspicion!ess drug testing. )e i!! not reuire p!aintis to do t'e impossib!eGto specu!ate as to a!! possib!e reasons usti$ying t'e po!icy t'ey arec'a!!enging and t'en to prove a negative %% t'at is, prove t'at t'egovernment 'ad no specia! needs 'en it enacted its drug testing po!icy.Here t'e p!ainti 4nion demonstrated t'at t'e State intended to conduct asuspicion!ess broad%based searc', 'ic' s'i$ted t'e burden o$ production tot'e State to usti$y itse!$ based on a specia!%needs e7ception to t'eindividua!i:ed%suspicion reuirement. =n remand, t'ere$ore, t'e State mustcome $orard it' t'e reuisite specia!%needs s'oing $or a!! categories o$emp!oyees it sees to test. ;or some categories, t'is s'oing may turn outto be uite simp!e and may amount simp!y to describing precise!y t'e natureo$ t'e ob and t'e attendant riss. &'us, $or e7amp!e, as to state !aen$orcement emp!oyees 'o carry rearms in t'e course o$ duty, t'e State!ie!y i!! need to do !itt!e more t'an identi$y t'ose emp!oyees. on Laabs'o!ding maes it c!ear t'at t'ose emp!oyees present t'e type o$ serioussa$ety ris t'at usties suspicion!ess drug testing. ;or ot'er categories o$emp!oyees, 'oever, t'e State must mae a stronger and more specics'oing t'an it 'as produced t'us $ar. &'us, as to run%o$%t'e%mi!! o8ceemp!oyees, $or e7amp!e, t'e State must demonstrate 'o t'ose emp!oyeespresent a serious sa$ety ris comparab!e to t'ose recogni:ed in Sinner andits progeny.


15/18


#age 14o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

&o date, t'e parties !itigation strategies in t'is case seem to 'ave $ocused onavoiding t'e ind o$ ob%category%by%category ba!ancing t'at Sinner and itsprogeny teac' us is t'e proper moda!ity $or eva!uating t'e constitutiona!ityo$ a suspicion!ess drug testing po!icy. &'e 4nion origina!!y soug't, andu!timate!y received, $acia! re!ie$ t'at cannot be sustained in !ig't o$ t'eE7ecutive =rders constitutiona! app!ications. Mean'i!e, t'e State 'asresisted providing t'e district court it' any specic specia!%needs s'oingst'at app!y to individua! ob categories and instead 'as insisted t'at a $ebroad, abstract reasons can usti$y t'e E= across t'e board. dmitted!y,providing ob%category%specic reasons and evidence %% 'ic' t'e districtcourt must 'ave in order to conduct t'e proper ana!ysis %% is a substantia!,even onerous, tas. onet'e!ess, convenience cannot override t'ecommands o$ t'e Constitution.F

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

#rug Testing in a #rug ourt 6n%ironment= >??>@ 0''&6' T>

##6''

&.'. #eartment of Austice2 >ce of Austice *rograms

&nlike the drug testing ractices conducted !" the militar" andworklace rograms2 howe%er2 drug testing in the criminal Custices"stem has not !een accomanied !" the esta!lishment ofconsistent cutoD standards that are uniforml" enforced.

The de%eloment of aroriate drug testing methodologies androcedures for criminal Custice s"stem defendants generall"Eandfor drug court articiants in articularEreFuires a consideration ofthe uroses of the drug testing rogram and the uses of drug testresults. learl"2 drug testings role in the militar" or the worklacediDers from its role in the criminal Custice s"stem. 6%en within thecriminal Custice en%ironment2 drug testing can !e conducted for %er"

diDerent uroses= rosecution2 suer%ision of a defendantscomliance with a retrial release or ro!ation order2 or2 as is thecase in drug courts2 monitoring a articiantsGG..

#irect o!ser%ation Iin%asion of ri%ac"J of the IurineJ samlesu!mission is also essential. This ste reFuires that the o!ser%erand the donor !e of the same gender. &on entr" into the drugcourt rogram2 articiants should eKecute their agreement to


16/18


#age 1o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

coml" with the drug court rogram drug testing reFuirements2including the su!mission of o!ser%ed urine samles.

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

;SCME vs Lic ScottG @rug testing state emp!oyees vio!ates -t' amendment

'ttpGKKac!uD.orgK2013K0K2>K$edera!%appea!s%court%de!ivers%!atest%b!o%to%gov%scotts%unprecedented%state%emp!oyee%drug%testing%programK

May 2>, 2013

@ecision comes in case o$ ;SCME and C+4s c'a!!enge to "ov. ScottsE7ecutive =rder reuiring emp!oyees to submit to invasive searc'esA !oercourt previous!y $ound program unconstitutiona!

;=L ?MME@?&E LE+ESEG May 2>, 2013

C=&C&G C+4 o$ ;!orida Media =8ce, (6/I* 3I3%2636, mediaZac!uD.orgM?M?% &oday, t'e 4.S. Court o$ ppea!s $or t'e 11t'Circuit issued an opinionreecting t'e argument made by t'e Scott administration t'at t'e state 'ast'e aut'ority to reuire a!! state emp!oyees to submit to invasive and'umi!iating drug tests as a condition o$ emp!oyment. &'e decision comes int'e case o$ ;SCME v. Lic Scott, in 'ic' t'e merican Civi! +iberties 4nion(C+4* o$ ;!orida, on be'a!$ o$ t'e ssociation o$ ;edera!, State, County andMunicipa! Emp!oyees (;SCME*, t'e states !argest union o$ pub!icemp!oyees, argued against t'e constitutiona!ity o$ an E7ecutive =rder issuedby "ov. Lic Scott 'ic' a !oer court 'ad previous!y $ound vio!ated t'e

;ourt' mendment.)it' todays decision, t'e 11t'Circuit becomes t'e !atest court to reect'at it ca!!s Va testing po!icy o$ unprecedented scope by "overnor Scott,Fstated C+4 o$ ;!orida sta attorney S'a!ini "oe! gara!, 'o as !eadcounse! in t'e case. ?t ou!d be $oo!is' o$ t'e governor to continue pus'ingto imp!ement 'is across%t'e%board drug testing regime 'en t'e courtc!ear!y states t'at, under t'e ;ourt' mendment, many o$ t'e individua!scovered by t'e e7ecutive order cannot be subected to invasive and'umi!iating searc'es ust because t'ey are government emp!oyees. )e !oo$orard to returning to t'e district court 'ere t'e "overnor i!! 'ave tos'o 'o eac' o$ 'is /,000 emp!oyees presents a serious sa$ety ris in

order to test t'em. )it'out a sa$ety%re!ated reason or suspicion o$ drug use,peop!e cant be reuired to sacrice t'eir Constitutiona! rig'ts in order toserve t'e peop!e o$ ;!orida.F

"overnor Scotts re!ent!ess uest $or urine testing 'as once again beenreected by a $edera! court,F stated !ma "on:a!e:, Specia! Counse!, ;SCMECounci! 6>. o matter 'o muc' "overnor Scott ants peop!e to be!ieveot'erise, t'e $act remains t'at peop!e dont 'ave to give up t'eir privacy,
http://x-owacid//87240000/uri:http://afscme.ourusf.org/?p=22http://x-owacid//87240000/uri:http://aclufl.org/2013/05/29/federal-appeals-court-delivers-latest-blow-to-gov-scotts-unprecedented-state-employee-drug-testing-program/http://x-owacid//87240000/uri:http://aclufl.org/2013/05/29/federal-appeals-court-delivers-latest-blow-to-gov-scotts-unprecedented-state-employee-drug-testing-program/http://x-owacid//87240000/uri:mailto:[email protected]://x-owacid//87240000/uri:http://afscme.ourusf.org/?p=22http://x-owacid//87240000/uri:http://aclufl.org/2013/05/29/federal-appeals-court-delivers-latest-blow-to-gov-scotts-unprecedented-state-employee-drug-testing-program/http://x-owacid//87240000/uri:http://aclufl.org/2013/05/29/federal-appeals-court-delivers-latest-blow-to-gov-scotts-unprecedented-state-employee-drug-testing-program/http://x-owacid//87240000/uri:mailto:[email protected]


17/18


#age 1,o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

dignity and constitutiona! protections in order to serve our communities.#ub!ic emp!oyees s'ou!d not be subect to arbitrary testing it'out probab!ecause or consent.F

&'e 2011 E7ecutive =rder mandated a!! state emp!oyees and ob app!icants

in e7ecutive branc' agencies under t'e purvie o$ t'e governor (about 66[o$ t'e state or$orce* submit to invasive tests o$ t'eir bodi!y Duids, even i$t'ere as no suspicion o$ drug use. =n &uesday, May 31, 2011, t'e C+4 o$;!orida !ed a !asuit c'a!!enging t'e order on be'a!$ o$ t'e ;SCME Counci!6>, 'ic' represents over -0,000 pub!ic orers 'o ere subect to t'esuspicion!ess drug%testing program under t'e order. ?n pri! o$ 2012, 4.S.@istrict Judge 4rsu!a 4ngaro enoined t'e order, ru!ing t'at reuiring stateemp!oyees to submit to suspicion!ess, invasive searc'es it'out suspicion o$drug use vio!ated t'e ;ourt' mendments ban on unreasonab!e searc'es.

&'e state appea!ed t'at decision, !eading to t'e 11t'Circuits decision today.Citing +ebron v. )i!ins, a recent case in 'ic' t'e C+4 o$ ;!orida a!sosuccess$u!!y c'a!!enged a ;!orida program reuiring peop!e to submit tosuspicion!ess searc'es, t'e court $ound t'atG Surrendering to drug testing inorder to remain e!igib!e $or a government benet suc' as emp!oyment ore!$are, 'atever e!se it is, is not t'e type o$ consent t'at automatica!!yrenders a searc' reasonab!e as a matter o$ !a.F &'e case no returns to t'e!oer court 'ere t'e governor must usti$y, ob%by%ob, 'y t'ere is aspecia! need $or t'e drug testing.

&'e idea put $ort' by our governor and 'is attorneys t'at peop!e can be$orced to surrender t'eir constitutiona! rig'ts simp!y because t'ey aregovernment emp!oyees 'as once again been reected by yet anot'er

$edera! court,F stated C+4 o$ ;!orida E7ecutive @irector Hoard Simon. &'e!asuit on be'a!$ o$ ;SCME is one o$ about a do:en !asuits t'at t'e C+4'as !ed or in 'ic' t'e organi:ation 'as submitted a $riend%o$%t'e%courtbrie$ c'a!!enging po!icies o$ t'e Scott dministration since January 2011. &'ecases inc!ude c'a!!enges to voting restrictions, a gag order on doctors and'ea!t' care orers about inuiring 'o guns are stored in t'e 'ome, andmandatory urine testing $or government emp!oyees and app!icants $ortemporary assistance $rom t'e state t'roug' t'e &; program.F

?t is a sad commentary t'at e 'ave 'ad to go to court so $reuent!y toprotect ;!orida citi:ens $rom t'eir on government,F Simon added.

&'e C+4 o$ ;!orida most recent!y c'a!!enged across%t'e%board drug testing in a separatecase c'a!!enging t'e drug testing po!icy o$ t'e City o$ Qey )est. &'e comp!aint in t'at caseis avai!ab!e 'ereG 'ttpGKKac!uD.orgKresourcesKey%est%mandatory%drug%testing%comp!aintpd$

copy o$ todays decision $rom t'e court is avai!ab!e 'ereG'ttpGKK.ca11.uscourts.govKopinionsKopsK201212>0/.pd$

ContactG C+4 o$ ;!orida Media =8ce, (6/I* 3I3%2636, mediaZac!uD.org

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
http://x-owacid//87240000/uri:http://aclufl.org/resources/key-west-mandatory-drug-testing-complaintpdfhttp://x-owacid//87240000/uri:http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201212908.pdfhttp://x-owacid//87240000/uri:mailto:[email protected]://x-owacid//87240000/uri:http://aclufl.org/resources/key-west-mandatory-drug-testing-complaintpdfhttp://x-owacid//87240000/uri:http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201212908.pdfhttp://x-owacid//87240000/uri:mailto:[email protected]


18/18


#age 18o$ 18

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The &.'.'ureme ourthas found that the onstitutionimlicitl"grants a right to ri%ac" against go%ernmental intrusion. This rightto ri%ac" has !een the CustiLcation for decisions in%ol%ing a widerange of ci%il li!ertiescases2 including *ierce %. 'ociet" of 'isters2which in%alidated a successful 1regoninitiati%ereFuiringcomulsor" u!lic education2 5riswold %. onnecticut2 where a rightto ri%ac" was Lrst esta!lished eKlicitl"2 oe %. Wade2 which struckdown a TeKasa!ortion law and thus restricted state owers toenforce laws against a!ortion2 and ;awrence %. TeKas2 which struckdown a TeKas sodom" lawand thus eliminated state owers toenforce laws against sodom".

n article in the #ecem!er 142 18

Defendant Basinger's Statement Regarding His Refusal to Take a Court Ordered Drug Test - x

Documents

Transcript of Defendant Basinger's Statement Regarding His Refusal to Take a Court Ordered Drug Test - x