In 1995, President Bill Clinton directed a universal pre-trail drug testing policy be implemental. Many feel this forced drug testing is an important addition to our criminal Justice System. On the other hand, there are those who feel that our privacy and confidentiality are being violated, that’s to include our Constitutional rights. Pretrial drug testing is based upon assumption, when we discuss assumptions, they can be defined better as well calculated guesses. The first viewpoint is the knowledge of the defendants drug use at the time of arrest. From this point, depending on the results of the drug test it may indicate possible misconduct at pretrial. The second aspect of the policy is that the monitoring which is used during the pretrial can be used with sanctions which will hopefully deter pretrial misconduct (Rhodes, 1996).
In my opinion I feel that this time of authority drug test are not effective. ” It would seem that if this policy were to make way that there would not be such a large rate of recidivism” (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1999). It takes more that sending a person to prison to break them of their habits. The means which are necessary to aid the cause of ending a drug habit are not available with this policy. Under the Bill of rights, the four rights that this policy violates are, The right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to be treated the same as others.
The reason that this policy is a violation is because all people are presumed innocent until proven otherwise, this also ties into the right against self incrimination. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is also a violation. It is in fact a violation of person’s rights to be forced to take a drug test, and have the results revealed to everyone before the case had even been presented to a court.
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case
The ethics of drug testing has become an increased concern for many companies in the recent years. More companies are beginning to use it and more people are starting more to have problems with it. The tests are now more than ever seen as a way to stop the problems of drug abuse in the workplace. This brings up a very large question. Is drug testing an ethical way to decide employee drug use? It is also very hard to decide if the test is an invasion of employee privacy. “The ethical status of workplace drug testing can be expressed as a question of competing interests, between the employer’s right to use testing to reduce drug related harms and maximize profits, over against the employee’s right to privacy, particularly with regard to drug use which occurs outside the workplace.” (Cranford 2) The rights of the employee have to be considered. The Supreme Court case, Griswold vs. Connecticut outlines the idea that every person is entitled to a privacy zone. However this definition covers privacy and protection from government. To work productively especially when the work may be physical it is nearly impossible to keep one’s privacy. The relationship between employer and employee is based on a contract. The employee provides work for the employer and in return he is paid. If the employee cannot provide services because of problems such as drug abuse, then he is violating the contract. Employers have the right to know many things about their employees.
...ult, and some times it does not give a result at all. It is unfair because it only targets certain workers; mainly low wage employees. It is unjust because people are automatically accused of using drugs, and that is why the drug test is given. Drug testing should not be abolished, but it should be a more controlled issue since it is something everyone in the US must go through.
In Douglas N. Husak’s A Moral Right to Use Drugs he attempts to look at drug use from an impartial standpoint in order to determine what is the best legal status for currently illegal drugs. Husak first describes the current legal situation concerning drugs in America, citing figures that show how drug crimes now make up a large percentage of crimes in our country. Husak explains the disruption which this causes within the judicial system and it is made clear that he is not content with the current way drugs are treated. The figures that Husak offers up, such as the fact that up to one third of all felony charges involve drugs, are startling, but more evidence is needed than the fact that a law is frequently broken to justify it’s repeal.
The War on Drugs is believed to help with many problems in today’s society such as realizing the rise of crime rates and the uprooting of violent offenders and drug kingpin. Michelle Alexander explains that the War on Drugs is a new way to control society much like how Jim Crow did after the Civil War. There are many misconceptions about the War on Drugs; commonly people believe that it’s helping society with getting rid of those who are dangerous to the general public. The War on Drugs is similar to Jim Crow by hiding the real intention behind Mass Incarceration of people of color. The War on Drugs is used to take away rights of those who get incarcerated. When they plead guilty, they will lose their right to vote and have to check application
A “drug-free society” has never existed, and probably will never exist, regardless of the many drug laws in place. Over the past 100 years, the government has made numerous efforts to control access to certain drugs that are too dangerous or too likely to produce dependence. Many refer to the development of drug laws as a “war on drugs,” because of the vast growth of expenditures and wide range of drugs now controlled. The concept of a “war on drugs” reflects the perspective that some drugs are evil and war must be conducted against the substances
There is an ongoing debate over whether or not Welfare recipients should be drug tested to receive the benefits. The lines of reasoning from both sides of this argument have unambiguous points. Those who oppose the idea of drug testing say that it is unconstitutional, and violates the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, they claim that this law stereotypes and discriminates against the poor
“Search and Seizure. Suspicionless Drug Testing. Seventh Circuit Upholds Drug Testing of Student Athletes in Public Schools. Schaill v. Tippecanoe County School Corp., 864 F.2d 1309 (7th Cir. 1988).” Harvard Law Review. 103 (Dec. 1989): 591-597.
After the three drug wars, civil liberties were comprised; the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution regarding the “unreasonable search and seizure” was infringed. Drug checks can be conducted on any motorist, on interstate highways,and land residents are subject to summary searches.3 As The House We Live In showed, any driver caught carrying a minimum of $5000 cash will have his money and vehicle – often a truck -- seized and taken as per the US seizure law that is in effect. Under this law, random searches are conducted at road checks and cars are pulled over anywhere based on the suspicions by the law enforcement officers.
“Most Supreme Court Cases regarding criminal justice try to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the society. The Supreme Court has the difficult task of bringing balance between these two often conflicting goals.” (POLICE, 2011, p.181).
“More than half of federal prisoners are incarcerated for drug crimes…” (Branson, 2012). Nonviolent drug offenses in America are unrightly over punished, causing more harm than good to those charged and all American citizens. Drug arrests and imprisonments are far too common and are taking focus off of more important crimes. The sentences for nonviolent drug crimes are far too long and harsh for the crime. Punishment against nonviolent drug crimes are not working and is causing more harm than good. The harsh punishment for nonviolent drug offenses might not seem like a problem at first, but it causes a huge toll on everyone involved. A simple nonviolent drug arrest could ruin an otherwise law abiding citizens’ life. The war on drugs is damaging
The prohibitionist national policy towards drugs in U.S has been extremely contentious in the present times. After decades of the stance that costs billions how many each year, the paltry achievements and the countless negative externalities have led to a clamor for alternative policies instead of a “War on Drugs”.
The war on drugs began with good intentions, but it is becoming clear that this battle is a failure. Not only do drug laws violate American’s freedoms, but they further complicate the lives of drug users. These laws have inadvertently been responsible for the deaths of thousands through bad drug deals and dirty drugs, which leads one to ask the question, “Is this a war on drugs or a war on drug users?” Body bags and HIV are becoming the most widely known side effects of drug prohibition. Contrary to what many may think, drug use will never be eliminated. Only through legalization and strict state-controlled regulations will the violent and deadly consequences of drug laws be controlled. By making these substances available, the drugs themselves will be safer and cheaper, government spending and prison population will decrease, and most importantly, Americans will be freer.
...ey to getting a good job, but high school students can’t get their education if they are caught up in doing drugs. Over thirty percent of dropouts in the United States are because of drugs. The thirty percent of drug addict dropouts may never find a job. Thats why it is important for high school drug testing to be enforced among all students. High school drug testing would allow early notice of drug use and allow the school to steer the student into the right path towards success. The drug tests will give students confidence and another reason to say “No” when being peer pressured into trying drugs. Many would argue that drug testings invade their privacy, but with drug usage being at an all time high who can we count on? High schools are made to prepare students for their future, and in order to make the students successful we must allow high school drug testings.