D.N.S., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2000-08-09
No. 2D98-3858
SALCINES, J., Concurs., BLUE, A.C.J., Concurs specially., NORTHCUTT, J., Dissents with opinion.
772 So. 2d 17 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2000) Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

D.N.S. pleaded no contest to violating the City of Tampa’s juvenile curfew ordinance, reserving her right to appeal the denial of her dispositive motion to dismiss on the ground that the ordinance is unconstitutional. We affirm on the authority of our recent decisions in J.P. v. State, 775 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), involving the Tampa ordinance at issue in this case, and State v. T.M., 761 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), involving a similar ordinance enacted by the City of Pinellas Park. We certify the following questions of great public importance:

AT WHAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY MUST A COURT EXAMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE?

IS THE TAMPA JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE CONSTITUTIONAL?

Affirmed.

SALCINES, J., Concurs.

BLUE, A.C.J., Concurs specially.

NORTHCUTT, J., Dissents with opinion.

Concurrence
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge,

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge,

Specially concurring.

I concur because I am bound by this court’s decision in T.M. In'the absence of this precedent, however, I would agree with Judge Northcutt’s analysis of the issues. See T.M. (Northcutt, J., dissenting).

Dissent
NORTHCUTT, Judge,

NORTHCUTT, Judge,

Dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. See State v. T.M., 761 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (Northcutt, J., dissenting).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • D.N.S. v. State, 788 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 2001)
    …PER CURIAM. We have for review D.N.S. v. State, 772 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), in which the Second District Court of Appeal certified the following questions to be of great public importance: AT WHAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY MUST A COURT EXAMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE? IS THE TAMPA…
  • D.N.S. v. State, 832 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
    …dinance. See Tampa, Fla.Code § 14 — 26(e) (1996). She argues that the ordinance is unconstitutional. This court previously rejected her argument and affirmed the trial court’s determination that the ordinance was constitutional. See D.N.S. v. State, 772 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), quashed, 788 So. 2d 955 (Fla.2001). In affirming the trial court, this court applied the heightened scrutiny test. See State v. T.M., 761 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), quashed, 784 So. 2d 442 (Fla.2001). However, this court als…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw