>From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Puzzled >Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 02:53:38 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Why on earth doesn't this ruling apply to everybody in the United States? > >Puzzled. > >Enjoy, > >Peter > >------- > > >Appeals court strikes down drug testing law > >The Associated Press >12/29/99 2:39 AM > >By ALAN CLENDENNING > >Associated Press Writer > >NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Louisiana's law requiring random drug tests for elected >officials is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled, rejecting >arguments that citizens need protection from drug-abusing lawmakers. > >But Gov. Mike Foster, a key supporter, will appeal the decision to the U.S. >Supreme Court, said his spokeswoman, Marsanne Golsby. > >The law, originally scheduled to go in effect in January, 1998, was part of >a drug-testing package described as one of the most sweeping ever passed in >the country. > >But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a federal >district judge who struck down the law last year, calling Judge Eldon >Fallon's decision "complete and well-crafted." > >Fallon said the law violated the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment >protection against illegal search and seizures. He also said state officials >failed to show a special need to test elected officials. > >The law required 10 percent of all state and local officials to be randomly >tested each year. Officials who refused would have faced fines of $10,000 >and censure. > >Under the law, results of the a first round of drug tests would have been >kept private. When drugs were detected, second tests would have been >administered within six months. If they showed positive signs of drugs, the >officials' identities would have become public. > >The ruling was no surprise to William Rittenberg, the lawyer who represented >state Rep. Arthur Morrell, a New Orleans Democrat, in the suit against the >law. > >Rittenberg said Foster and others wasted public money by passing and >defending the law because the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that >candidates for public office cannot be tested for drugs. > >"This wasn't a case that required any deep thinking," Rittenberg said. "I >think any reasonable lawyer knew the Supreme Court had already decided this >issue." > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: