Source: http://hozir.org/supreme-court-of-the-united-states-of-america.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:47:29+00:00

Document:
Any and all court papers, briefs, transcripts of proceedings, attorney work product, or court records (except reported judicial decisions) that have been filed in any case addressing the issues raised in this case.
Any and all law review articles, bar journal articles, or similar publications that analyze the issues raised in this case and which are not yet publicly available through publication either in print, on Lexis or Westlaw, or on the Internet. In the event that a team or one of its members has already had access to such a publication, disclosure of the title and author of the publication and the circumstances in which it was accessed must be made to the Ames Competition Case Writers, Julie Barton, HLS ‘92 (jbarton@law.harvard.edu) and Meryl Kessler, HLS ‘93 (mkessler@law.harvard.edu) and to the opposing team. In such circumstances, arrangements will be made to afford the opposing team access to the publication in question, and both teams will be required to treat the publication in question as confidential unless the author or copyright owner of the publication agrees otherwise. Publications by practitioners and students are included in this prohibition; however, no team member is required to disclose his or her own related scholarship.
Any studies or surveys beyond those explicitly included in the Record. Nor may any team member use any material external to the record to undermine, support, or elaborate on any studies or surveys referred to in the Record.
Promptly direct any questions about this policy for Off-Limits Materials to Julie Barton or Meryl Kessler.
Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to challenge the constitutionality and prohibit the enforcement of the Ames Juvenile Curfew Act (the “Ames Curfew”), Ames Gen. L. ch. 87, §1 et seq., on the grounds that the Ames Curfew violates the Equal Protection rights of minors. Plaintiffs further bring this action for damages and other relief appropriate under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights by Defendant Amesville Playland under color of state law.
This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the United States Constitution.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331.
Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202, Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by the general legal and equitable powers of this Court.
Venue is appropriate in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred within the State of Ames.
Plaintiff Spencer McNeil (“McNeil”) is a minor who is now, and at all times mentioned was, a resident of the town of Amesville located in the State of Ames. McNeil sues by and through his mother and next of friend, Vanessa McNeil.
Plaintiff Juan Perez (“Perez”) is a minor who is now, and at all times mentioned was, a resident of the town of Amesville located in the State of Ames. Perez sues by and through his father and next of friend, Jose Perez.
Defendant Sam Lu (“Lu”) is now, and at all times mentioned was, the Chief of Police of the Town of Amesville located in the State of Ames. The Amesville Police Department, under the control of Defendant Lu, enforces the law in Amesville.
Defendant Sarah Jackson (“Jackson”) is now, and at all times mentioned was, the duly elected prosecutor of Amesly County located in the State of Ames. Defendant Jackson determines whether to prosecute persons in Amesley County. The Town of Amesville is located in Amesly County within the State of Ames.
Defendant Amesville Playland (“Playland”) is now, and at all times mentioned was, an enterprise owned and operated by Stanley Yaznetz and located in Amesville, Ames.
In pertinent part, the Ames Curfew makes it unlawful for minors, defined as persons under the age of eighteen (18), “to remain, idle, wander, stroll or play in any public place or establishment in the State of Ames during curfew hours.” Ames Gen. L. ch. 87, §4(A). Curfew hours are defined as “between 11:00 p.m. on any Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday until 5:00 a.m. of the following day; and 12:01 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. on any Saturday or Sunday.” Ames Gen. L. ch. 87, §3(A).
The Ames Curfew makes it “unlawful for the owner, operator, or any employee of an establishment to knowingly allow a minor to remain upon the premises of the establishment during curfew hours.” Ames Gen. L. ch. 87, §4(C). An “establishment” is defined under the Ames Curfew as “any privately-owned place of business operated for a profit to which the public is invited, including, but not limited to, any place of amusement or entertainment.” Ames Gen. L. ch. 87, §(3)(C).
Under the Ames Curfew, “[u]pon probable cause, the owner, operator, or any employee of an establishment may question any person suspected of being a minor and take reasonable steps to prevent minors from entering or remaining on the premises during curfew hours.” Ames Gen. L. ch. 87, §4(C).
On or about Friday, July 25, 2003, at approximately 9 p.m., McNeil and Perez, both age fifteen (15), arrived at Playland, an amusement park and arcade located in Amesville, Ames.
At approximately 12:15 a.m. on Saturday, July 26, 2003, Stanley Yaznetz (“Yaznetz”), the owner and operator of Playland, approached McNeil and Perez while they were playing video games in the arcade.
Yaznetz asked McNeil and Perez if they were under the age of 18, but McNeil and Perez refused to respond to Yaznetz’s inquiry.
Yaznetz asked McNeil and Perez to leave the Playland premises, but they indicated that they wanted to continue playing video games with the tokens they had already purchased.
Yaznetz called over two Playland employees and together they forcibly escorted McNeil and Perez to Yaznetz’s office on the Playland premises where Yaznetz called the Amesville police.
Yaznetz and his employees forcibly detained McNeil and Perez in Yaznetz’s office for at least 45 minutes while they waited for the Amesville police to arrive. During this time, Yaznetz denied McNeil and Perez’s various requests to call their parents, use the bathroom, and go home.
At approximately 1:10 a.m., Officer John Garrity (“Garrity”), an Amesville police lieutenant, arrived at Yaznetz’s Playland office where Yaznetz delivered McNeil and Perez into Garrity’s custody.
On information and belief, since the enactment of the Ames Curfew, Yaznetz has previously detained at least eight (8) other minors and delivered them to the Amesville police at Playland.
Using Yaznetz’s office, Garrity questioned McNeil and Perez and determined that they were minors within the definition of the Ames Curfew.
Garrity issued McNeil and Perez each a citation instructing them to appear in Juvenile Court and, if found to be without a defense for this violation, to be fined $250.
At their hearings, McNeil and Perez each testified that they had permission from their parents to stay out past 12:01 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays during the school summer vacation. Furthermore, Vanessa McNeil and Jose Perez also testified at their sons’ hearings that both boys had their permission to stay out past 12:01 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays during the summer school vacation.
Noting that the Ames Curfew contains no exception for minors who are out after curfew hours even with a parent’s permission, the Juvenile Court judge imposed the fine of $250 on both McNeil and Perez.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
The Ames Curfew deprives the Plaintiffs of their fundamental right to free movement within the State of Ames.
The State of Ames has no compelling interest in restricting the movement of all minors within the State of Ames after curfew hours.
Even if the State of Ames has a compelling interest in restricting the movement of all minors in the State of Ames after curfew hours, the Ames Curfew is not narrowly tailored to accomplish its goals.
Defendants Lu and Jackson are charged with enforcing the Ames Curfew.
Denying minor Plaintiffs the fundamental right to move freely in the State of Ames violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The owner and operator of Playland, as well as Playland employees, acting under color of the Ames Curfew, forcibly and unreasonably detained Plaintiffs in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The forcible detention of Plaintiffs constituted a customary plan followed by Playland and the Amesville police.
Playland acted in concert with the Amesville police to deprive Plaintiffs of their civil rights.
As a result of the actions set forth above, Plaintiffs were damaged by Playland and are entitled to damages and other appropriate relief.
Granting such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
1. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment if no material facts remain in dispute.
2. The parties have stipulated to all of the material facts together with certain third-party sources of data.
3. The Ames Juvenile Curfew Act (“Ames Curfew”), Ames Gen. L. ch. 87, §1 et seq., does not deprive Plaintiffs of a fundamental right and therefore does not merit review under a standard of strict scrutiny.
4. The Ames Curfew survives either intermediate or rational-basis scrutiny.
5. Even if the Ames Curfew does merit strict scrutiny, it serves the State of Ames’s compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to accomplish the goal of preventing minors from participating in or being victims of crime.
6. Accordingly, the Ames Curfew does not violate Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Rights and Defendants Lu and Jackson are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
1. Defendant Playland is entitled to summary judgment if no material facts remain in dispute.
3. Defendant Playland is not a state actor acting under color of state law and therefore cannot be held liable for a deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
4. Therefore, Defendant Playland is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

References: §1983
 §1
 §1983
 §1983
 §1331
 §1391
 §4
 §3
 §4
 §4
 §1
 §1983