J.A. v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided June 14, 2001

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 2001-06-14

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 2004

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“WHAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY MUST A COURT APPLY WHEN REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE? WHETHER THE PINELLAS PARK JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL?”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including J.P. v. State, State v. T.M.

“strict scrutiny applies to juvenile curfew ordinances”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 907 So. 2d 1101 - State v. JP

Relies on TM v. State · J.A. v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-06-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We have for review J.A. v. State, 779 So.2d 390 (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!;.]

¶2Id. at 390-91. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.

¶3In T.M. v. State, 784 So.2d 442 (Fla.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.

¶4It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.