State v. TM

• Decision Date: 17 May 2000
• Docket Number: No. 2D98-3778.,2D98-3778.
• Citation: 761 So.2d 1140
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. T.M., A.N. and D.N., Juveniles, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

761 So.2d 1140

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. T.M., A.N. and D.N., Juveniles, Appellees.

No. 2D98-3778.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 17, 2000.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorney General, Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Bruce G. Howie of Piper, Ludin, Howie & Werner, P.A., St. Petersburg, and Robert L. Hambrick, Clearwater, for Appellees.

Edward D. Foreman and Stephen M. Todd, St. Petersburg, for the City of Pinellas Park, Amicus Curiae.

DAVIS, Judge.

The State appeals the trial court's order declaring the City of Pinellas Park's juvenile curfew ordinance to be an unconstitutional restriction on a parent's fundamental right to raise his or her child. We reverse.

THE CURFEW ORDINANCE

The City originally adopted its juvenile curfew ordinance on May 22, 1997, to reduce juvenile crime and victimization. The ordinance declares it unlawful for a juvenile to be or remain in a public place or establishment between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day, Sunday through Thursday, and 12:01 a.m. through 6:00 a.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. See Pinellas Park, Fla., Code § 16.124(D)(1) (1997). Parents violate the ordinance if they knowingly allow their child to violate the curfew. See § 16.124(F). A juvenile is any person who has not reached the age of eighteen and who is not legally emancipated by marriage or otherwise. See § 16.124(C)(3). The ordinance provides several exceptions to its general prohibitions, to wit:

(1) when the juvenile is accompanied by his or her parent or by another adult at least twenty-one years old and who is authorized by the juvenile's parent to have custody;

(2) when the juvenile is involved in an emergency or engaged, with his or her parent's permission, in an emergency errand;

(3) when the juvenile is attending or traveling to or from an activity that involves the exercise of rights protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (e.g., religious services, government meetings, political party meetings);

(4) when the juvenile is going to and from lawful employment, or in a public place or establishment in connection with or as required by a business, trade, profession, or occupation in which the juvenile is lawfully engaged;

(5) when the juvenile is returning directly home from a school-sponsored, religious, or civic organization function;

(6) when the juvenile is on the property or on the sidewalk of the juvenile's own residence or an adult next-door neighbor's residence with that neighbor's permission;

(7) when the juvenile is engaged in interstate travel or bona fide intrastate travel with the consent of the juvenile's parent;

(8) when the juvenile is attending an organized event sponsored by a theme park or entertainment complex; or

(9) when the juvenile is in a public place or establishment as otherwise authorized by the City Council for an activity or event not specifically outlined in the other exceptions and which is sponsored by a school, religious, civic, social, or other similar organization or group.

See § 16.124(E).

The police cited T.M., A.N., and D.N. for violating the ordinance. The State Attorney's Office filed a separate petition for delinquency against each juvenile. Prior to an adjudicatory hearing on the petitions, each of the juveniles moved the trial court to rule the ordinance unconstitutional on its face and dismiss the petitions for delinquency. The juveniles challenged the ordinance on several grounds. They suggested that the ordinance unconstitutionally infringes on certain fundamental rights. Additionally, the juveniles alleged that the ordinance is vague and overly broad. Finally, they argued that the ordinance is invalid because it is inconsistent with state law.

On September 8, 1998, the trial court granted the juveniles' motions to dismiss. The trial court reasoned that the juveniles' parents had a fundamental right to raise their children without governmental intrusion.¹ Accordingly, the trial court applied the strict scrutiny test² in reviewing the ordinance. Applying strict scrutiny, the trial court determined that the City has a compelling interest in reducing juvenile crime and victimization. However, in spite of the City's compelling interest, the trial court ruled that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored in the least restrictive manner to achieve that interest.

Various courts have upheld juvenile curfew ordinances against constitutional challenges when the ordinances have been properly drafted. See, e.g., Metropolitan Dade County v. Pred, 665 So.2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)

; Sansbury v. City of Orlando, 654 So.2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); People in Interest of J.M., 768 P.2d 219 (Colo.1989). Other courts, including this court, have struck down such ordinances for being overly broad, vague, or for infringing on basic constitutional rights when the ordinances did not contain adequate exceptions. See, e.g., T.F. v. State, 431 So.2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); S.W. v. State, 431 So.2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); K.L.J. v. State, 581 So.2d 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We must determine whether the Pinellas Park ordinance falls in the former or latter category of cases.

The trial court invalidated the subject ordinance after concluding that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children, and that the City has improperly infringed on that right. As explained below, we disagree with the trial court's conclusion that the City unconstitutionally interfered with a parent's decision to allow his or her child to travel in public areas late at night without supervision.

STANDING

Citing State v. Hagan, 387 So.2d 943 (Fla.1980), the State argues that juveniles in a delinquency proceeding may not challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance on the basis that the ordinance impermissibly impacts their parents' substantive due process rights. Since the parents are not parties to this action, the State suggests that this issue is not properly before the court. In contrast, the juveniles argue that even if the court accepts the State's contention, they, the juveniles, have a fundamental right of their own to be parented without undue governmental intrusion.

We need not rule whether the juveniles had standing to assert this claim. Assuming that T.M., A.N., and D.N. properly raised the issue, as we explain below, we reject the trial court's ruling that the ordinance violated a fundamental right related to child rearing. However, because we must affirm the trial court's dismissal if it reached the right decision for the wrong reason, we address each of the juveniles' challenges to the ordinance.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The juveniles ask us to decide whether the ordinance impermissibly infringes on certain fundamental rights. If the ordinance operates to the disadvantage of a suspect class or impairs the exercise of a fundamental right protected by the constitution, we must apply the strict scrutiny test. See, e.g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993)

. Although the ordinance does single out juveniles for disparate treatment on the basis of age, the United States Supreme Court has previously determined that age alone does not define a suspect class. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 470, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991). Absent the involvement of a suspect class or a fundamental right, courts usually invoke the rational basis test. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993). However, in recent cases involving juvenile rights, courts have employed an intermediate, or "heightened," scrutiny. See, e.g., Hutchins v. District of Columbia, 188 F.3d 531 (D.C.Cir.1999) (en banc). With that observation in mind, we investigate the nature of the rights that the ordinance impacts.

A. Fundamental Right to Freedom of Movement

Although courts agree that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees a fundamental right to interstate travel, there is no general consensus that a person has a fundamental right to free movement under either the First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, or Due Process Clause. See Hutchins, 188 F.3d at 535-39

. For reasons explained below, we need not determine whether such a fundamental right exists in juveniles.

Although courts disagree whether such a fundamental right exists in adults, here in Florida, the Florida Supreme Court, in Wyche v. State, 619 So.2d 231 (Fla.1993), wrote:

Hailing a cab or friend, chatting on a public street, and simply strolling aimlessly are time-honored traditions in our society and are clearly protected under Florida as well as federal law. All Florida citizens enjoy the inherent right to window shop, saunter down a sidewalk, and wave to friends and passersby without fear of arrest.

Id. at 235 (citations omitted). Assuming arguendo that juveniles have a similar coextensive right, an assumption that is by no means certain, we must ascertain whether this general right extends to a specific juvenile's right to be in a public place or establishment at night without adult supervision. The juveniles cite B.B. v. State, 659 So.2d 256 (Fla.1995), in which the Florida Supreme Court held that the privacy right guaranteed by article I, section 23, of the Florida Constitution extends to minors. By analogy, the juveniles urge that they have a right to freedom of movement coextensive with that of adults, which extends to being in a public place or establishment without adult supervision.

We are not convinced that juveniles would have such a fundamental right to freedom of movement, much less one which is coextensive with that of adults. See Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 634, 99 S.Ct. 3035, 61 L.Ed.2d 797 (1979)

(setting forth factors justifying treating minors and adults differently); Pred, 665 So.2d at 253 (stating Florida and U.S. Constitutions do not give children "same quantum or quality of rights as adults")....