Drug Testing for Welfare Assistance

  There has been some talk in Michigan of again reviving the idea that all applicants for state "welfare" aid  be required to pass a drug test. Not surprisingly there is substantial push back from groups who defend Constitutional right against such a proposal. Many people question where a violation of a Constitutional right would occur in such testing. The logic being that employers can mandate a drug test for their employees, why can't the same restriction exist for those receiving government aid?

  The short answer is, the difference is that a state is not a private actor, it is the government. 

  The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. This includes searches of their person. As the state of Florida has already found out, the state cannot engage in suspicionless blanket invasion of a person without meeting a very high threshold. This is why Florida's law attempting to require such testing faced an injunction after only four months on the books (the link above goes to the opinion by the 11th Cir. Court of Appeals upholding that injunction). 

  While it is well and good to say that people benefiting from government aid should be held accountable for their actions at this time the Courts are skeptical of this argument. Perhaps the state of Florida can demonstrate a exceptional need but I don't know they it can.
  Using Florida's numbers from the short time that the law was in effect 4,048 people took the drug tests. Of that number 108 failed the test. That means that 2.67% (out of a very small sample) of people were actually impacted. I have a difficult time seeing a court rule in favor of a law that invades the privacy of a substantial section of the population in order to weed out such a small number.
  I am open to hearing other arguments on this issue but like it or not such laws are unlikely to stay on the books even if legislatures pass them. If we want the Constitution to protect us we have to accept that occasionally that protection will allow a small number of people to take advantage of the system. The Constitution protects everyone (good or bad) the same way.