R.J.H., 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.
R.J.H. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for violating Tampa's juvenile curfew ordinance. After the Florida Supreme Court directed that strict scrutiny apply to juvenile curfew ordinances, the appellate court reversed the adjudication, finding the Tampa ordinance unconstitutional under that standard.
The Tampa juvenile curfew ordinance is unconstitutional under strict scrutiny review. The adjudication of delinquency is reversed.
[1] The proper level of scrutiny for reviewing the constitutionality of a juvenile curfew ordinance is strict scrutiny.
[2] A juvenile curfew ordinance may be found unconstitutional under strict scrutiny review.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the proper test for determining the constitutionality of a juvenile curfew ordinance is strict scrutiny”
The Florida Supreme Court's directive on the applicable constitutional standard of review for juvenile curfew ordinances
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.J.H. was adjudicated delinquent for violating Tampa's juvenile curfew ordinance (Code § 14-26(c)). This is the second appeal in this matter; the tri…
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.
R.J.H. appeals the court’s adjudication of delinquency for violating Tampa’s juvenile curfew ordinance. See Tampa, Fla. Code § 14-26(c) (1996). He argues that the ordinance is unconstitutional. This court previously rejected his argument and affirmed the trial court’s determination that the ordinance was constitutional. See R.J.H. v. State, 779 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), quashed, 788 So. 2d 952 (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 also certified two questions to the Florida Supreme Court as being 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?
Upon review, the Florida Supreme Court answered the first question by directing that the proper test for determining the constitutionality of a juvenile curfew ordinance is strict scrutiny. Accordingly, without answering the second question, the supreme court remanded this matter back to this court for application of the strict scrutiny test. See R.J.H. v. State, 788 So. 2d 952 (Fla.2001).
For the reasons stated in J.P. v. State, 832 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), we find that the Tampa ordinance is unconstitutional and reverse the adjudication of delinquency. However, we again certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question to be of great public importance:
WHETHER THE TAMPA JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL?
Reversed.
CASANUEVA, J., Concurs.
NORTHCUTT, J., Concurs specially.
NORTHCUTT, Judge,
Specially concurring.
I concur in my colleagues’ majority opinion with one reservation. In J.P. v. State, 832 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), on which today’s ruling is based, I wrote a concurring opinion stressing that in my view it is an open question whether the city’s interest in protecting children’s welfare can ever justify a blanket prohibition against them leaving their homes during specified hours. Thus, as I did in that case, I agree that this ordinance is unconstitutional for at least the reasons described in the J.P. majority opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- T.M. v. State, 784 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2001)
- 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)
- J.P. v. State, 832 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- R.J.H. v. State, 779 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- R.J.H. v. State, 788 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2001)