Today's drug test ruling: What are the Constitutional ramifications?

[BuyingThyme]

I don't know if anybody here gives a crap about today's 9th Circuit ruling by which Major League Baseball must surrender the results of player drug tests to the government, but I'm wondering if we should be crapping our pants.

My understanding is that the government will be able to use this information -- information which the players were assured would be confidential -- to prosecute the likes of Barry Bonds for perjury (and who knows what else).

So, now, what does this mean Constitutionally?

Does it mean that a wide range of drug testing results from work, school, and even the doctor's office are now fair game for the government?

Or was this just an extraordinary circumstance which happened to meet the standard of reasonable search and seizure?

Does this decision weaken arguments in favor on the Constitutionality of drug testing at schools?

Is there a thread already here?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061227/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/athletes_steroids_5

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

1. The government will always get what it want's.

[nashville_brook]

2. K n R for more info! come on, people! what say ye?

with the gigantic, secret databases of personal info being kept by The Govt -- doesn't this scare the shit out of you? it does me. in a world where even liberals are willing to reach into the private lives of individuals (if it's for our health, as with smoking) then, what makes anyone think that a positive drug test won't trigger ramifications at a later date... say, when Corrections Corporation of America gets a contract for drug treatment facilities. i can just see friends and neighbors being dragged away to "rehab" against their will -- TO LINE THE POCKETS OF CRONY CAPITALISTS.

yes! this will impact our constitutional rights... just as soon as someone figures out how to make a buck off it.

[nradisic]

3. It is the steroids...

Steroids are an illegal substance. If Major League Baseball has info on 100's of players using and or dealing an illegal substance.....I say give the info to the government.

[hughee99]

5. The drug tests wouldn't provide any info on "dealing" just using...

If that is the case, should all employers who find evidence of an employee using illegal substances be required to give their info to the government? Why stop at employers, why not doctors or other health professionals who have info about illegal drug use?

[conscious evolution]

4. It seems like the 5th amendment would kick in then.

An argument I have heard in favor of drug testing by companies is that it is legal because they are not goverment entities so 5th amendment protection does not apply.Forcing nongovermental testers to turn over results to the goverment could be seen as forcing people to testify against themselves in violation of the fifth amendment.
This ruling may turn out to be a good thing.

[BuyingThyme]

8. I was similarly thinking of the Fifth in terms of schools.

It seems that a student could take the fifth, indicating that the very nature of drug testing arguably goes to a question of law.

Then the schools will say, "Okay, then, you can't play on our football team, or debate on our debate team."

Then the student should say, well, you don't have a right to do that. You, as a government entity, do not have the right to negate or negotiate my inalienable rights.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madmusic]

21. You got that backwards...

It's the government who can't force self incrimination. Compare Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" (non-government) to the illegal jail cameras in Arizona (uploading non-convicted bookings to the Internet).

The only thing slowing down medical info is statutory medical privacy laws, but they will go away for a "compelling government interest." It will probably start with DNA collected from criminals then expand to everyone. Bad genes will be against the law. This is already happening or is about to happen in England, where risky personality disorders are enough to commit someone BEFORE they commit a crime.

[H2O Man]

6. It is a federal grand jury investigation,

and the current laws give federal grand juries access to many things that are otherwise protected. It does not have any impact on drug testing at school or the workplace, per say. However, the topic of urine tests should be of interest and concern to progressive democrats, and not simply to those who use illegal substances. One of the related issues I find disturbing is that in the county I reside in, everyone who applies for public assistance is now referred to ADAS for "evaluation." This is a process that usually is reserved for people who are involved in the criminal justice system (for example, someone with a DWI). It's something that I am hoping someone who is applying will contest, as I have serious doubts if it is legal.

[BuyingThyme]

7. This IS drug testing at the workplace.

And it does not involve a grand jury or any other secret proceeding. (If it had, you wouldn't have heard about it.)

It's about the government seizing property.

[H2O Man]

11. You might want

to re-read the articvle that you linked, particularly paragraphs #3 & 8. It is indeed a grand jury investigation. In regard to your claim that if it were, that we would not have heard about it, you might think of the Plame grand jury, and the appeals regarding the Miller and Cooper subpoenas. I assume that you have heard of them.

[BuyingThyme]

13. Completely wrong, as usual.

This is about property seized under warrant.

Are you under the impression that the grand jury issued warrants to the prosecutor?

[madmusic]

24. If it is a regulation, it's probably legal...

As long as there aren't criminal charges or punishments. It will be interesting to follow this, as they are already many regulations on public housing and college grants based on past drug use.

[BuyingThyme]

36. He's just misunderstanding what people are talking about

when we speak in terms of grand juries having latitude.

The relative latitude is simply wider in terms of the investigation process, but no such latitude is granted or assumed in regards to people's civil rights.

It's really a moot point thought, because prosecutors gather their evidence before going to the grand juries in the first place. So the grand jury likely didn't even exist when the prosecutor collected the first batch of relevant information.

[Rex]

9. Drugs are illegal, the govt will crawl into our beds and check under

the sink for 'drugs'. If we allow them to.

[butterfly77]

10. I have always said...

they want to control, how we worship, what we eat,drink,who,when and how we have sex etc...These people are hypocrites,the same people who are making these laws are breaking them...

[sweetheart]

18. and very well said it is indeed. :-) nt

[MrCoffee]

12. Today's ruling had nothing to do with drug tests

it was about the scope of a search warrant.

[BuyingThyme]

14. The ruling had to do with whether or not the drug test data

was within the scope of the search warrant.

Nothing to do with drug tests? How so?

Federal agents initially went to a Long Beach company, Comprehensive Drug Testing, with a warrant for records of ballplayers in the BALCO investigation. They obtained a directory of computer files for all the company's sports drug testing, and a document identifying other players who had tested positive for steroids, the court said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/28/BAGL8N95J51.DTL&feed=rss.athletics

[MrCoffee]

15. It's a much broader ruling than drug tests...

it has to do with what is and is not eligible for seizure under a valid search warrant, when legitimate targets of the warrant are intermingled with illigetimate information. It's bigger than drug tests, it implicates phone records, bank records, medical records, library records, credit card records, internet records, email...

and you're worried about drug testing in school?

[BuyingThyme]

29. Thank you for admitting that you were completely wrong.

That was big of you.

And, yes, of course I'm worried about drug testing in schools.

[MrCoffee]

31. hey, whatever helps you feel better about yourself

[BuyingThyme]

35. Didn't mean to snip, it's just that these are the very issues

drug testing goes to, particularly in this case where would-be confidential drug-test data may be used in a criminal prosecution.

[Mythsaje]

16. Since everyone was so silent at the beginning of all this testing crap

They're going to push it as far as it can go.

And, yet, isn't it interesting that Congress refuses to drug-test itself on the grounds that it violates their privacy?

Hah.

[ieoeja]

17. Major League Baseball enjoys special status under the law.

It is exempt from anti-trust laws. This has been used before as justification for actions taken vis-a-vis MLB.

On the other hand ... they WILL use this as precedence for doing the same to the rest of us. And when doing so the justification for this as a special case will be ignored.

Sort of like how breaking into homes unannounced to get drug dealers in the 80s led to Ruby Ridge and Waco. What idiocy makes authoritarians think the power they give the gov't today won't be used against THEM tomorrow?

[BuyingThyme]

30. The League enjoys status, but this is really about the rights

of players (and all people in comparable situations).

[mloutre]

19. I don't have a problem with drug testing. I've tested bunches of 'em.

n/t

[NashVegas]

20. I Think It's Unreasonable Search, and a Violation of the 5th Amendment

That said, in regards to baseball, drug testing, and steroids:

Any pro-athlete that uses steroids or other drug-enhanced means of excelling is overpaid.

[MrCoffee]

22. what's unreasonable about it?

the warrant was valid, signed by a judge, after a showing of probable cause. there is no precedent to support the idea that the prosecutor has to divulge the existance of an unfiled motion.

i think the ruling is pretty much in line with settled 4th Amendment principles. Granted, it's an "important" ruling in the context of records stored and retrieved on computer, but the 9th Circuit isn't pulling this stuff out of a hat.

[madmusic]

25. The slippery slope is the point, I think.

More than this particular case.

[NashVegas]

28. This Is Not Unlike the Kansas Att'y General Demanding Abortion Records

In order to prove its case about late term abortions.


From the article:

Baseball players and owners agreed in their 2002 labor contract that the results would be confidential, and each player was assigned a code number to be matched with his name.

These records would not exist if the players had not consented to take the tests under certain standards.

[BuyingThyme]

32. It's unreasonable if

they gather property which is not specifically covered by the warrant.

[MrCoffee]

33. did you read the decision? that was the whole issue of the case,

whether or not it was reasonable to do so. the court ruled that yes, it was reasonable to confiscate all the records because it was unreasonable to expect one person to sift through them on-site and determine what was and was not covered under the warrant.


if the court says it's reasonable under the 4th, then it's reasonable under the 4th. who else gets to decide?

[BuyingThyme]

34. Yes, that's why it's an issue.

Thank you for understanding.

It looks like the Supreme Court may get to decide.

[Joanne98]

26. This won't stop into we fight back.

They are strip searching children in school now for God's sake.

STOP THE DRUG WAR BEFORE WE'RE ALL IN JAIL!

[baldguy]

27. Promises from corporations are worthless.

If you need to rely on a corporations integrity to stay out of bankruptcy, or prison, or to save your life or the lives of your family, and that integrity stands in the way of the corporations' profit, profit will win every time.

But then, you don't own your personal information. You never have.

[AnnInLa]

37. WTF does this do the expectation of privacy

as guaranteed by decisions of the Supreme Court? I was on the negotiating team for our teachers' work contract in my school system, and the school board agreed with us that the teachers (public) had the right to privacy, so could not be drug tested....same did not apply to students, of course.

[AnnInLa]

38. oh, never mind

I see by the other comments, that this is narrower than random drug testing, and specific to the baseball grand jury....sorry!

[BuyingThyme]

39. Yes, if the baseball players thought for a second that the data

could be used against them in court (in criminal court, particularly), there's no way they ever would have agreed to take the tests.

No chance.

[Rex]

40. On CNN they said that the govt grabbed thousands of drug screening

records NOT even involved in the MBL case! Really? Now why do that I wonder? :eyes: