J.P., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
J.P. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for violating Tampa's juvenile curfew ordinance, challenging its constitutionality. The court holds that the ordinance is constitutional under heightened scrutiny and affirms the adjudication.
Tampa's juvenile curfew ordinance is constitutional. Juvenile curfew ordinances are subject to heightened scrutiny, and the ordinance satisfies this standard because it contains adequate exceptions, focuses on preventing juvenile crime and victimization, is substantially related to an important government interest, and imposes penalties consistent with state law.
[1] Juvenile curfew ordinances are subject to heightened scrutiny.
[2] A juvenile curfew ordinance is constitutional if it is substantially related to an important government interest.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We believe juvenile curfew ordinances are subject to heightened scrutiny.”
Establishes the applicable standard of review for evaluating the constitutionality of juvenile curfew ordinances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn December 1996, J.P. was charged with violating Tampa's juvenile curfew ordinance. J.P. pleaded not guilty and moved to declare the ordinance uncons…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Heightened Scrutiny cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
J.P. appeals the trial court’s adjudication of delinquency, which stems from his violation of Tampa’s juvenile curfew ordinance. See Tampa, Fla., Code § 14-26(c) (1996). We hold that Tampa’s juvenile curfew ordinance is constitutional and affirm.
In December 1996, the State charged J.P. with violating the ordinance. J.P. pleaded not guilty and thereafter moved the trial court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion. J.P. subsequently changed his plea to no contest, and the trial court adjudicated J.P. delinquent.
On appeal, J.P. raises essentially the same arguments recently addressed by this court in State v. T.M., 761 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We believe juvenile curfew ordinances are subject to heightened scrutiny. See id. at 1145, 1146. Applying heightened scrutiny, we note that the ordinance contains adequate exceptions which limit the scope of the curfew, and focus enforcement on the prevention of juvenile crime and victimization. See § 14 — 26(d). As in T.M., we conclude that the City of Tampa could rely on the curfew experiences of other cities when enacting its ordinance. See T.M., 761 So. 2d at 1146. Thus, we conclude that the curfew is substantially related to an important government interest. See id. at 1145, 1146. Finally, we also conclude that the ordinance imposes' penalties which are consistent with state law. See id. at 1149.
We again certify the following questions of great public importance:
WHAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY MUST A COURT APPLY WHEN REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE?
WHETHER THE TAMPA JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL?
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, J., Concurs.
NORTHCUTT, A.C.J. Dissents with opinion.
NORTHCUTT, J.,
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
-
State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 2004)…basis review, but noting that the juvenile curfew ordinance survives even under heightened scrutiny) (Winter, J., dissenting). In fact, when the district court first reviewed these cases, it employed the heightened scrutiny test. See J.P. v. State, 775 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (J.P.I); T.M. I, 761 So. 2d at 1146. Under that test, it found both ordinances constitutional. As I noted above, because the majority acknowledges that the cities have established compelling interests, Majority op. at 1117,…1 / 2
-
J.P. v. State, 832 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ourt as being of great public importance: (1) WHAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY MUST A COURT APPLY WHEN REVIEWING THE CONSTITU [*112] TIONALITY OF A JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE? (2) WHETHER THE TAMPA JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL? J.P. v. State, 775 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), quashed, J.P. v. State, 788 So. 2d 953 (Fla.2001). On review, the Florida Supreme Court answered the first of our questions by concluding that the proper standard of review of a juvenile curfew ordinance is strict scrutiny.…
-
J.P. v. State, 788 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 2001)…PER CURIAM. We have for review J.P. v. State, 775 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), in which the Second District Court of Appeal certified the following questions to be of great public importance: WHAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY MUST A COURT APPLY WHEN REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE? WHE…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tenet Healthcare Corp. v. Hialeah-Miami Springs Med. Fund, 761 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- State v. T.M., 761 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)