## Facts

- Dade County enacted an anti-graffiti ordinance restricting minors’ possession and purchase of spray paint and jumbo/broad-tipped markers.
- The ordinance permitted minors to possess the items on public property only if accompanied by a responsible adult, and on private property with the owner’s consent.
- A delinquency petition was filed alleging D.P., a minor, violated the ordinance’s possession provisions.
- D.P. challenged the ordinance as facially unconstitutional, arguing it punished possession without requiring intent to commit graffiti and improperly regulated items with lawful, innocent uses.
- The trial court upheld the ordinance, and D.P. appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantive due process is violated by an ordinance that criminalizes a minor’s possession of spray paint and jumbo markers without requiring proof of intent to commit graffiti.
2. Whether substantive due process is violated by regulating minors’ possession of items with common lawful uses, such as spray paint and markers.
3. Whether treating minors differently from adults in restricting purchase and possession of these items is constitutionally permissible under rational-basis review.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court and upheld the ordinance as facially constitutional.
- The court held no fundamental right was implicated by minors’ possession of spray paint or jumbo markers, so rational-basis review applied.
- The court concluded the ordinance was rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest of reducing graffiti vandalism, particularly associated with minors.
- The court rejected the argument that due process required a specific-intent element, characterizing the measure as a permissible regulatory/public-welfare type restriction.
- The court relied on the ordinance’s limited scope, emphasizing it was not an outright ban because supervised or consent-based possession remained lawful.

## Legal Principles

- When no fundamental right is implicated, a possession restriction is evaluated under rational-basis review and will be upheld if reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest.
- Government may impose regulatory restrictions on minors’ access to otherwise lawful items when the classification is rationally related to addressing a public problem.
- Due process does not necessarily require proof of specific criminal intent for public-welfare/regulatory offenses, particularly where the regulation targets instrumentalities closely linked to the harm and preserves lawful avenues for innocent use.
- The existence of legitimate uses for regulated items does not, by itself, render a targeted possession restriction facially unconstitutional.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Dade County’s anti-graffiti ordinance as a rational regulatory measure: it permissibly restricted minors’ unsupervised possession of spray paint and jumbo markers without requiring proof of intent to commit graffiti, while allowing supervised and owner-consented possession.


D.P. v. State, 705 So. 2d 593 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)