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
Twelve year olds aren't allowed to vote. Are we infringing on their constitutional rights by not allowing them to?
I'll say it again. The only people I know of who want minors to be treated as full citizens are homosexuals, pedophiles, and the ACLU, and other assorted liberal weirdos.
As is the local government by telling parents they cannot be the final arbiter of when their kids have to come home.
Nice try, though.
If we don't let children run amock, have sex with adults, basically do what ever they want to, we're all in danger, right.
Spoken like a true liberal. I wonder which category you fit into.
No, I am not in a position of authority. I do have a great boss, who I do not distrust. If I did have that power, I'm sure I would question myself. And I would not be a corrupt hypocrite.
No. The Constitution forbids the states from keeping the vote away from anyone over 18. 12 year-old are therefore not constitutionally entitled to the vote.
Straw man argument. Nobody is proposing that people under a certain age have the exact same rights as adults.
Yeah, right.
Kids who run amock and break the law can be arrested and/or their parents can be held accountable. If an adult has sex with somebody who is underage, they get arrested.
You seem fond of putting words in peoples' mouths.
Fine. Nobody on this thread is proposing that, then.
You know exactly what the agenda is here, and why the ACLU is interjecting themselves into this fray.
Only for as long as children are treated as minors, right?
'How about innocent until proven guilty? If the bad seeds commit a crime, arrest and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, but don't assume that everyone out past a certain time is up to no good..'
Thank you. I can't stay around, but I wanted to mention that people sometimes forget that THE PEOPLE in this country are the sovereigns, and the State is our servant. When the State starts treating the master as if he were the servant, it's time to rein the State in. One of the ways the State turned our sovereignty on its head was by deliberately hiding the fact that there is a PREAMBLE to the Bill of Rights that states clearly that the government only has the power we delegate to them, another is through the cunning 14th Amendment.
See:
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/lindat.html
INDEX TO THE 14TH AMENDMENT
http://usa-the-republic.com/amendment_14/Index.html
Know Your Rights!
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/states.html
It is time some of us [myself included] study up on what was taken from us, and how to go about taking it back. It's our destiny:
If the Son hath made ye free, ye shall be free indeed.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Jhn/8/36.html
Unless we choose to be slaves.
Constitutional Convention
[the effort to rewrite the Constitution to suit the New World Order] http://www.sweetliberty.org/concon.htm
Three rights mentioned on this thread would look far different:
'The Bill of Rights would be replaced by "privileges" given to us by the world government and taken away at its whim. For example...
Article 1-A Sec.1 - "Freedom of expression shall not be abridged except in declared emergency". A perpetual state of emergency could be declared which would prevent anyone from writing the material you are now reading. In fact, we could face imprisonment for the mere reading of this type information.
Article 1A Sec.8 - "The practice of religion shall be privileged".
Article 1B Sec. 8 - "Bearing of arms shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and ***those licensed UNDER LAW." '
We need to rein them in now, if we want to be people with Constitutional liberty, instead of people 'UNDER the Law'.
There is no serious movement to change that situation.
You must live under a rock. What a disingenuous statement. I'll let that one fall on its own merit.
I was speaking to their perspectives. I'm not impressed with the FSC - they seem elistist. I doubt they are concerned for the innocent people in these neighborhoods, who are equally entitled to live in peace and safety, but cannot afford the gated neighborhood.
What about 'curfews' (restrictions) against driving drunk? We shouldn't ban all drunk drivers just because some commit murder with their vehicles while they're under the influence.
Everything else is a strawman.....the ACLU testing the waters again, continuing their program of destroying America. That's all this is.
Other than NAMBLA and a few radical leftists there is no such movement.
Try letting your 2 yr old run around outdoors at night(or during the day for that matter) and see what happens.
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.