Case Title: J.P. v. State of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2001-06-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
  
_______________________
No. SC00-1445
_______________________
J.P., a child,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA
Respondent.
[June 14, 2001]
CORRECTED OPINION
PER CURIAM.
We have for review J.P. v. State, 775 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), in
which the Second District Court of Appeal certified the following questions to be
of great public importance:
WHAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY MUST A COURT APPLY WHEN
REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A JUVENILE
CURFEW ORDINANCE?
WHETHER THE TAMPA JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE IS
CONSTITUTIONAL[.]
Id. at 325.  We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida
Constitution.
-2-
In T.M. v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S266 (Apr. 26, 2001), we answered the
first certified question by holding that strict scrutiny applies to juvenile curfew
ordinances.  As in T.M., we decline to answer the second certified question, quash
the decision of the district court, and remand this case for further proceedings.  
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Certified Great Public Importance
Second District - Case No. 2D97-1736 
(Hillsborough County)
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant
Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Michael J. Neimand, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida,
for Respondent
James D. Palermo, City Attorney, and Jerry M. Gewirtz, Assistant City Attorney,
Tampa, Florida,
for City of Tampa, Amicus Curiae