Opinion ID: 1100352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Scope of the Ordinances

Text: The majority finds that the curfews proscribe otherwise innocent and legal conduct by minors even with parental permission. Majority op. at 1118. As noted above, however, the ordinances contain a laundry list of exceptions. Through these exceptions, parents retain ample authority to exercise parental control, and minors retain the ability to engage in a broad range of conduct. As with the ordinance at issue in Hutchins, the broad language of the ordinances' exceptions contemplates flexibility in the administration of the curfews that enhances parental control. See Hutchins, 188 F.3d at 546. [15] The exceptions allow parents significant discretion over their children's activities during curfew hours. For example, the ordinances impose no restrictions whatsoever when the minor is accompanied by a parent or guardian. Most importantly, the ordinances protect juveniles' ability to engage in First Amendment conduct. The ordinances also protect juveniles' ability to work and attend academic, religious, and civic functions. They also allow minors to go to a neighbor's property and to engage in interstate travel. Under the Tampa ordinances, juveniles are allowed to run errands with parental permission and the Pinellas Park ordinance provides a similar exception for emergency errands. In short, the ordinances limit minors to the extent that they lack a specific and legitimate purpose for being on the streets in the middle of the night. Despite the breadth of the exceptions, the majority specifically attacks the Pinellas Park ordinance on two grounds: (1) its failure to provide for nonemergency errands during restricted hours, and (2) its inclusion of seventeen-year-olds within the ordinance's scheme. Neither of these grounds is persuasive. The provision for strictly emergency errands simply means that nonemergency errands will have to be accomplished during the seventeen-hour time period between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. More troubling is the majority's disapproval of the ordinance's inclusion of seventeen-year-olds within the curfew. Majority op. at 1118. This distinction is eminently logical. Under state law, a seventeen-year-old is still considered a minor. See § 1.01(13), Fla. Stat. (2003) (defining minor for purposes of statutory construction as any person who has not attained the age of eighteen). The majority's conclusion that seventeen-year-olds cannot be included within the definition of a minor for purposes of a juvenile curfew does not bode well for a myriad of laws prohibiting seventeen-year-olds from engaging in various forms of adult conduct. Under the majority's reasoning, seventeen-year-olds must be allowed to drink alcoholic beverages, to execute contracts, and to work full-time. The majority cites no studies, statistical data, or other evidence demonstrating why seventeen-year-olds should not be considered minors. It also does not explain why the cut-off must be at the age of seventeen, and not at sixteen or fifteen. Ultimately, determining which ages of minors to include within a curfew is quintessentially a legislative judgment. Cf. Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000) (noting that the Equal Protection Clause permits states to draw lines on the basis of age at a class-based level, even if it is probably not true that those reasons are valid in the majority of cases); Harper v. Harper, 848 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (stating that [b]y legislative design, children up to the age of eighteen are dependent upon their parents). It is not the function of a court `to hypothesize independently on the desirability or feasibility of any possible alternative[s]' to the statutory scheme. . . . These matters of practical judgment and empirical calculation are for [the State].' Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 274, 99 S.Ct. 518, 58 L.Ed.2d 503 (1978) (alterations in original) (quoting Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 515, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 49 L.Ed.2d 651 (1976)). Finally, in attacking the alleged broad coverage of the ordinances, the majority argues that the curfews apply throughout the cities without any showing of a city-wide need or problem. Majority op. at 1118. However, a city-wide curfew is a matter of common sense. First, almost insurmountable problems would exist in enforcing a non-citywide curfew. It would expose municipalities to charges of bias or racial profiling. See Hutchins, 188 F.3d at 544 (rejecting on this basis the appellee's argument that the District was obliged to confine the curfew to high crime areas of the city). Moreover, from a practical perspective, it is doubtful that a non-citywide curfew could adequately achieve its purpose. Juveniles could easily avoid a non-citywide curfew by going from curfew areas, where presumably a juvenile crime problem previously existed, to non-curfew areas, thus creating a juvenile crime problem there. In short, the source of the problems embodied by juvenile crime is not grounded strictly in geography. Again, these are ultimately legislative judgments that courts are ill-equipped to second-guess.