Posted on 11/19/2004 8:20:07 AM PST by JesseHousman
TALLAHASSEE -The state Supreme Court struck down two curfew laws in Southwest Florida, placing others in doubt.
A closely divided Florida Supreme Court struck down two juvenile-curfew laws in Southwest Florida on Thursday, jeopardizing similar ones throughout the state, including one in Miami-Dade County that served as a model for others statewide.
In the 4-3 opinion, the majority of justices said the laws in Tampa and neighboring Pinellas Park were too broad because they targeted minors who committed no other crime than being night owls, and because they criminally punished parents and even shop owners who condoned or couldn't control kids' curfew-breaking.
The 91-page opinion and its dissents concern a number of municipalities in Florida that passed juvenile curfew laws after Miami-Dade's ordinance survived a challenge at the appellate court level in the mid-1990s.
Key West, Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale have laws similar to those in Miami-Dade, Tampa and Pinellas Park. All have slightly different language but seek the same thing: to keep minors off the streets after 11 p.m. or midnight. The other laws may stay on the books unless challenged.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued Miami-Dade in the mid-1990s and brought the lead suit in Pinellas Park, said the laws have a target: young minorities. Two of the three youths who challenged Pinellas Park's restrictions are black.
''There is a radical difference between the well-intentioned and high-sounding words of the ordinance and the way it ends up being enforced on a day-to-day basis -- which is typically against young black men,'' said Howard Simon, the ACLU's executive director in Florida.
In Fort Lauderdale, a law was passed in 1997 but wasn't really used at all, said city police Detective Chuck Sierra.
''It was basically abandoned,'' he said. ``What was problematic for us was where are we going to put them? We would be stuck baby-sitting the child until somebody relieved us.''
SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE
Miami-Dade County Attorney Robert Ginsburg noted the county's success defending the law, but said he would have to wade through Thursday's opinion before commenting. Ginsburg, the Miami-Dade state attorney's office and a Metro-Dade police spokesman declined to say whether the law has been effective or how often it is used.
Key West was a latecomer to the curfew-law craze, passing its ordinance in 2002 as the town gentrified and tried to tone down. But, as in Miami-Dade, police don't appear to use the law often. A spokesman for the Key West Police Department said officers use the ordinance as ''a tool'' to get kids off the streets and usually take them home or have parents pick them up at the police station.
Miami Beach City Attorney Murray Dubbin said the new ruling should have little effect on Miami Beach's enforcement of the county's curfew ordinance. He said the city's law, like the county's, was narrowly tailored and would survive a challenge because it provides civil -- not criminal -- penalties for repeat violators.
Tampa and Pinellas Park provided criminal penalties that ''are possibly the most troubling aspect,'' Justice Peggy A. Quince wrote in the majority opinion.
The justices also seemed troubled with the fact that, in Tampa's law, ''business operators who knowingly permit a juvenile to remain on business premises during curfew hours are also subject to the sanctions.'' Though Miami-Dade and some of the other cities have civil penalties, they still seek to penalize private businesses and parents involved in curfew violations.
POSSIBLE JAIL TIME
In Tampa and Pinellas Park, kids, shopkeepers and parents could be thrown in jail and fined for a first curfew violation. In Miami-Dade, a parent or shopkeeper could only be fined up to $500 starting with a third curfew violation. Kids could be taken to a holding facility.
Miami-Dade's law, passed at the insistence of former Commissioner James Burke in 1994, embodies the tone of alarm sounded in nearly every ordinance: It is ``a matter of fact that Miami-Dade County is facing a mounting crisis caused by increasing crime, including juvenile crime and delinquency which threatens peaceful citizens, residents, and visitors.''
But that determination might not cut it. The justices rapped Tampa's law because officials in that city didn't provide statistical data showing the need for it. Pinellas Park officials did provide the required data.
The lead lawyer in the case, Bruce Howie, said he was encouraged by the opinion. In his case, a white girl identified only as T.M. was cited by Pinellas Park police when she stepped beyond the curb of her friend's home, where she was staying overnight, to talk to some boys in a car at 1 a.m.
''She was there with her mother's permission. So this ordinance interfered with her mother's right as a parent giving consent to her child to stay over and her right to be in the street just talking to some boys,'' Howies said. ``Police have better things to concern themselves with.''
Herald staff writers Jennifer Babson, Nicole White and Samuel P. Nitze contributed to this report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 Herald.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.miami.com
I don't agree. The curfew has everything to do with deterring crime. The kids are in public places, hence an issue for governmental authority. Kids in public schools are subject to government authority while there. Kids being schooled at home are not in public places with the potential for crime and mayhem, so there is no basis for that level of control.
For the state to exert some control over when and where minors may gather/loiter/waste away in public is not a huge deal; they're still only affecting public places. (Although this does raise the question of how the state can dictate who may or may not gather/loiter on private (business) property away from their homes.) When the state intrudes into our homes to dictate what is taught there, we have one serious issue to combat.
So why not curfews for adults?
is there overall opinion here that the government should set curfews for kids?
i think thats interesting. i think the government should mind their own business.
Because minors and adults have different rights. (As I covered in earlier posts.) Adults have many more legitimate reasons to be out and about in the middle of the night. As a past police officer, I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that youth get into much more trouble on the town late at night than adults do.
As a former police officer, maybe you are aware that the majority of crimes committed by minors occurs from roughly 3pm to 6pm. Why not a curfew then?
Telling people they must be off the streets when they're not doing anything wrong is a prescription for a police state. If you encounter someone actually breaking the law, cite or arrest them.
Otherwise, it's none of your business, no matter what their age. Minority Report indeed.
I do keep my kids home at night because we live in a high crime city, however it is MY decision and not the state's.
In this case, that is akin to suggesting that children of any age should be able to drive a car or carry a concealed weapon. After all, the law should only do something about it if and when they break the law, right?
The rights of youth are curtailed for good reason. Many centuries of experience in our culture has lead to this situation. It isn't some insidious police-state trying to take over the planet, it's responsible adults -- voters --proactively reining in kids who aren't being appropriately limited, for whatever reason, by their parents.
There is such a thing as unfettered liberty; it's called anarchy. The majority of US citizens don't want that.
In other words, "it takes a village" right? Obviously, we will continue to disagree.
But I still can't fathom why anyone would think they should or could have such choices over other people's kids. If a parent wants to let their kids see a late movie, a late concert, or just hang out in a Taco Bell parking lot that's their business, not yours.
Only when the parents abdicate their duties. If they do, then the village has the choice of administering some control or forfeiting the peace and order of its people.
This law is subject to the same system as any other: If the majority of parents don't want their kids subject to a curfew, they should move to have the law repealed.
How is allowing a 16-year-old to go the late movie or a concert abdicating any kind of parental duty?
The kid is doing nothing wrong and not breaking any laws. The parent knows where the kid is & what he/she is doing. Both parties are fine with the arrangement. No one is being harmed or effected.
Law-abiding people deserve to be left alone.
So are you saying it's ok if Denny's bans someone but not ok for the government to ban someone?
You are so right about that!! "Other assorted liberal weirdos" could include the United Nations.
It may not make you feel any better about it, but it's been my experience that these laws are only enforced at the disgression of the police officer anyway. They're rather like traffic laws requiring you to use your turn signal, dim your lights within a certain distance, etc..: Officers use them at their disgression, when the situation otherwise requires some action. Personally, I never stopped anyone coming out of the late movie because it was past curfew. I did use the law to break up noisy crowds of kids loitering for hours in parking lots on school nights. The warning of a curfew violation was (usually) enough to get them to go home, and that's the whole point, IMO.
The interesting thing to me is that I'm guessing you are vehemently against judicial activism in other cases, yet this article is about judicial activism against a properly enacted law. Why are you seemingly defending this practice when it favors your view? ...or do I misunderstand your stance on this?
You're right. The police usually use this curfew to stop teenagers involved in disruptive and/or criminal behavior.
In Miami-Dade, it was common for teenage groups to hang out late around the streets leading to the main airport, throwing broken glass into the street to cause flat tires, as well as rock throwing to passing vehicles. (I myself witness such behavior while driving home from the airport)
After the curfew was instituted, the teenage gangs disappeared. Since it is very difficult to identify the perp out of a group, cops will usually ask the wannabe hoodlums to observe the curfew and go home. I hope the Miami-Dade curfew is not challenged by the ACLU.
Yes. Private property owners are free to discriminate in a lot of ways the government isn't.
My profile page is a test as to whether you have a sense of humor or not.
You failed.
If the private property owner wants them gone, you don't need a curfew law to get them out of there. Trespass laws would work just fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.