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
They don't, unless they're minors. Minors simply don't have the same rights as adults. It's a long-standing fact in our system of laws.
Yes, they do, if the owner happens to be at his store at 3:00 AM to demand that they leave. If not, other ordinances are necessary to keep things peaceful.
No, I don't. Our society has rejected the idea of differentiating rights based on race; they have embraced the idea of differentiating some rights based on age.
(Oh, and the word is, "affect") ;-)
I'm not positive about that one. Generally, though, a sign isn't as strong as a specific order when things go to court.
If the kids were being peaceful, which is rarely when large groups of them are together really late at night, then we wouldn't give them too much heat. We'd just keep an eye on them and make sure it stayed quiet. Of course, different officers had different levels of tolerance for this.
You're fighting a straw man here. I didn't say that the constitution only applies to non-minors. What I did say is that we have always curtailed the rights of minors, in many areas.
I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if you can show me that the framers of the Constitution intended for people of all ages to enjoy identical rights.
BUT.... I was a good kid and my parents knew it. They knew that I would never touch drugs, fornicate, commit street crimes, let my grades slip, turn homosexual or Democrat, or drive drunk -- even if I stayed out til sunrise.
Not all kids are like that.
Not being in a position of authority gives you exactly zero credentials to question authority. Not being an "authority" also implies that you don't have any "responsibility".
Since you can't really understand "authority" until you are held "responsible", you really must admit that you don't know what you are talking about.
That's kind of a dangerous statement. Taken to its logical conclusion, it means that the average American has no right to challenge their leaders.
Your brand of libertarianism is in no way conservatism.
You are a DU troll. That should be obvious to anyone.
They as well. It's obvious who represents what on this thread.
As for those citizens that have no practical experience with the concepts of "responsibility" and "authority" -- no, they should not have any right to "question" authority, any more than a four year old child's right to question his/her parents.
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.