Lebron v. Wilkins
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124818
M.D. Fla.2011Background
- Lebron applied for TANF benefits and is subject to Florida's Section 414.0652 drug-testing requirement.
- Lebron refuses to test, arguing the mandate violates the Fourth Amendment; DCF stipulates he is otherwise eligible.
- Florida enacted 414.0652 after a prior Demonstration Project found low drug-use rates and no clear employment benefits from testing.
- The Demonstration Project tested thousands; about 2–5.1% tested positive, with minimal impact on employment or earnings.
- Statute requires applicants to pay for testing; negative results trigger reimbursement; positive results lead to sanctions or alternative custody arrangements for benefits.
- Court grants preliminary injunction preventing enforcement against Lebron pending merits, with class certification denied without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether urinalysis drug testing of TANF applicants is a search | Lebron asserts testing is a Fourth Amendment search. | Wilkins argues no search occurs because testing is not coerced consent. | Yes, testing is a Fourth Amendment search. |
| Whether Lebron's initial consent bars the claim | Consent cannot validate an unconstitutional search; revocation preserves rights. | Consent and ripeness would bar the claim. | Consent does not bar the Fourth Amendment challenge; revocation preserves claim. |
| Whether the state demonstrated a substantial special need supporting suspicionless testing | No proven special need justifies blanket testing. | Public funds, child welfare, and safety justify special needs. | Special needs not demonstrated; blanket testing not justified. |
| Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm absent relief | Irreparable harm from unconstitutional intrusion. | No irreparable harm since testing is optional. | Irreparable harm established; injunction appropriate. |
| Whether the public interest supports continuing or enjoining the program | Public interest favors protecting constitutional rights. | Public interest in preventing misuse of funds and drug-related harms. | Public interest favors maintaining the injunction; status quo should be preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (urine testing implicates a Fourth Amendment search)
- Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (U.S. 1989) (drug testing in a sensitive employment context is a search)
- Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1997) (special needs must be substantial and well-designed)
- Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (U.S. 1995) (drug testing of students in schools as a special context)
- Earls v. Greenwood County, 536 U.S. 822 (U.S. 2002) (school drug testing under special needs scrutiny)
- Marchwinski v. Howard, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (concerns about extending special needs reasoning too broadly)
- Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (U.S. 2001) (drug testing as a search with potential intrusion)