Sale ex rel. Sale v. Goldman
Decision Date | 19 July 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 27315.,27315. |
Citation | 539 S.E.2d 446,208 W. Va. 186 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | Anna SALE, By and Through Her Next Friend and Parents, June and William SALE; Katelyn Genevieve Kimmons, By and Through Her Next Friend and Parent, Rebecca Kimmons; Carol Freas, M.D.; Lealah Pollack, By and Through Her Next Friend and Parent, Carol Freas; and the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Petitioners Below, Appellants, v. Mayor Jay GOLDMAN, Mayor of the City of Charleston; Chief Jerry Riffe, the Chief of Police for the City of Charleston; and the City of Charleston, Respondents Below, Appellees, Center For Community Interest And West Side Neighborhood Association, Intervenors Below, Appellees. |
Jason E. Huber, Forman & Crane, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for the Appellants.
John R. Teare, Jr., Mark H. Dellinger, Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for the Appellees, Mayor of and Chief of Police for City of Charleston, and City of Charleston.
Michael W. Carey, Carey Hill & Douglas, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for the Appellees, Center for Community Interest and West Side Neighborhood Association.
This appeal was brought by Anna Sale, by and through her next friend and parents, June and William Sale, petitioners below/appellants1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Sales"), from a final order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County finding a curfew ordinance promulgated and enforced by the City of Charleston, et al., respondents below/appellees2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "City"), constitutional and valid under the laws of this State.3 After a careful review of the briefs and record in this case, we affirm the circuit court's order.
The facts underlying this appeal are generally not disputed by the parties. On December 1, 1997, the City, through its City Council, adopted a "Youth Protection Ordinance."4 The purpose of the ordinance includes the protection of minors from criminal victimization and exposure to criminal activity.5 The ordinance carries out its purpose by imposing a curfew on juveniles under the age of eighteen. The curfew becomes effective at 10:00 p.m. on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights, and lasts until 6:00 a.m. the following mornings. On Saturday and Sunday mornings, i.e., Friday and Saturday nights, respectively, the curfew operates from 12:01 a.m. until 6:00 a.m. Numerous exceptions to these time limits include emergency situations and youngsters who are employed, emancipated, accompanied by their parents, or engaged in errands at their parents' direction. Further excluded from the curfew restriction are those minors who are exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly and youth who are participating in activities sponsored by school, church, community, or government organizations. Finally, the ordinance allows affected individuals to apply for a permit to exempt them from the curfew's time limits for special circumstances not otherwise provided for therein, so long as the applicant has his/her parent's permission to participate or engage in the stated activity which has necessitated the exemption.
Violators of the curfew are subject to detention by law enforcement authorities and may be adjudicated delinquent. According to the Sales, curfew violators may be transported to their homes or to a holding facility until their parents can pick them up. In addition, those individuals who assist or acquiesce in the minor's disregard of the stated time limits and who are found guilty of this infraction are guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine not to exceed $500 and/or a jail sentence of not more than thirty days.
Perceiving the imposition of a curfew to be an impermissible infringement of their constitutional rights, the Sales instituted this civil action in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on March 24, 1998, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance. The Sales alleged that the ordinance operates to deprive them of their constitutional rights to equal protection, freedom of speech and association, due process, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, the Sales complained that the ordinance violates W. Va.Code § 49-5-8(b) [1997].6 In addition, at least one parent/appellant complained that the ordinance abrogated her constitutional right to parental privacy.7
Following discovery, the circuit court held a hearing in this matter on July 15, 1998. Thereafter, on May 20, 1999, the circuit court issued its decision, ordering:
Subsequent to the issuance of the circuit court's order, on May 24, 1999, the Sales moved the circuit court to continue the stay of the ordinance's operation to permit an appeal of the circuit court's decision to this Court. By order entered June 2, 1999, the circuit court denied the motion for a stay of the curfew's implementation. As a result of the circuit court's adverse rulings, the Sales similarly requested this Court stay the ordinance's institution pending an appeal of the circuit court's decision on the merits. By order entered June 9, 1999, we denied the requested stay. The Sales then filed this appeal. We now consider the assignments of error.
Syl. pt. 1, in part, In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996). See also Woo v. Putnam County Bd. of Educ., 202 W.Va. 409, 412, 504 S.E.2d 644, 647 (1998)
().
This Court is also reminded that "[w]hen the constitutionality of a statute is questioned every reasonable construction of the statute must be resorted to by a court in order to sustain constitutionality, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the legislative enactment." Syl. pt. 3, Willis v. O'Brien, 151 W.Va. 628, 153 S.E.2d 178 (1967). Accord Syl. pt. 3, Donley v. Bracken, 192 W.Va. 383, 452 S.E.2d 699 (1994). Further, as was held in Syllabus point 1, in part, of State ex rel. Appalachian Power Co. v. Gainer, 149 W.Va. 740, 143 S.E.2d 351 (1965), Accord Syl. pt. 4, Tony P. Sellitti Constr. Co. v. Caryl, 185 W.Va. 584, 408 S.E.2d 336 (1991). It is with the above-mentioned standards in mind that we review the circuit court's order.
The Sales first contend that the curfew ordinance violates W. Va.Code § 49-5-8(b) [1997],8 which establishes very specific and limited instances in which a law enforcement official may take a minor into custody without having a warrant or court order. The circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Covington v. Smith
...not argued in the briefs on appeal may be deemed by this Court to be waived."). See also Sale ex rel. Sale v. Goldman, 208 W.Va. 186, 199-200 n. 22, 539 S.E.2d 446, 459-60 n. 22 (2000) (per curiam) (deeming assignment of error that "is terse and lacks any authority to support it" to have be......
-
Jenkins v. City of Elkins
...purported cross assignment of error to be insufficient to be preserved for appellate review. See Sale ex rel. Sale v. Goldman, 208 W.Va. 186, 199–200 n. 22, 539 S.E.2d 446, 459–60 n. 22 (2000) (deeming assignment of error that “is terse and lacks any authority to support it” to have been wa......
-
Jenkins v. City of Elkins
...purported cross assignment of error to be insufficient to be preserved for appellate review. See Sale ex rel. Sale v. Goldman, 208 W. Va. 186, 199-200 n.22, 539 S.E.2d 446, 459-60 n.22 (2000) (deeming assignment of error that "is terse and lacks any authority to support it" to have been wai......
-
State v. Boyd
...We do not address conclusions; we address adequately briefed assignments of error. See Sale ex rel. Sale v. Goldman , 208 W.Va. 186, 199–200 n.22, 539 S.E.2d 446, 459–60 n.22 (2000) (deeming assignment of error that "is terse and lacks any authority to support it" to have been waived).24 E.......