Last week a Louisiana State Senate committee voted 5-2 to pass House Bill 7, which requires random drug testing of 20 percent of adults receiving cash assistance from the Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program.
Critics of the bill claim it’s an unconstitutional search and seizure and cite a strikingly similar law in Michigan that was declared unconstitutional by the state’s Supreme Court in 2003.
Noting that collecting urine samples was considered a search, the Court found the state’s purpose for enacting the law — to move more families from welfare to work — was insufficient to override Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
In addition, the Court deemed the state’s argument that the law helped prevent child abuse and neglect among drug abusers as “misplaced” because the specific welfare program to which the law applied was not aimed at preventing child abuse or neglect.
One of the most crucial distinctions about both the Louisiana and Michigan laws is that drug testing is not mandated for the general population; it is mandated for adults who voluntarily apply for a specific program. The Michigan Supreme Court rejected this distinction, citing a U.S. Supreme Court case, Chandler v. Miller, in which drug testing of elected officials in Georgia for a more voluntary activity — holding public office — was declared unconstitutional.
The bottom line is that a state must have “a special need grounded in public safety” in order to override Fourth Amendment protections.
If Louisiana lawmakers intend on enacting this law and keeping it, they must thoroughly address each of these issues.
First, the Michigan Court’s reference to Chandler v. Miller did not take into account that Georgia had no evidence of drug abuse among elected officials. Thus, Georgia had no special need in drug testing its elected officials.
Louisiana certainly has a well-grounded, legitimate interest in combating child abuse and neglect among drug abusers. As the state of Michigan argued, “substance abuse and child neglect are highly correlated.” Such an interest easily qualifies as a special need.
In addition, while FITAP’s primary goal is to move families from welfare to work, the program also clearly expresses an interest on its website in preventing child neglect and abuse.
Whereas Michigan’s purpose in enacting its law was to move more families from welfare to work, Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, author of Louisiana’s bill, said Louisiana’s version would also help families with substance abuse problems get treatment. Indeed, the bill states that those who fail drug testing must go to rehab.
After addressing the weak points of the failed Michigan law, the question ultimately boils down to whether drug testing FITAP participants constitutes a special need — grounded in public safety — that warrants overriding the Fourth Amendment.
It would be difficult to argue child abuse and neglect are not a safety issue. Moreover, insomuch as welfare recipients voluntarily apply for assistance, they cannot expect to have full privacy rights, and it is reasonable to say that HB 7 counts as an exception to the Fourth Amendment.
Despite the ACLU’s objections that drug testing welfare recipients is unconstitutional, HB 7 differs from Michigan’s law in the right areas and has a much better chance of maintaining constitutionality.
Austin Casey is a 19-year-old medical physics junior from Mandeville. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_Austincasey.
——
Contact Austin Casey at [email protected]