## Facts

- J.P., a juvenile, was stopped around 2:00 a.m. while riding a bicycle in Tampa, Florida.
- The State filed a juvenile delinquency petition alleging J.P. violated Tampa’s juvenile curfew ordinance.
- The ordinance generally barred minors under 17 from public or semipublic places during late-night hours (11:00 p.m.–6:00 a.m. on weeknights; 12:00 a.m.–6:00 a.m. on weekends), subject to limited exceptions (e.g., accompanied by a parent, certain activities, or running an errand with parental permission documentation).
- A curfew violation could result in delinquency adjudication and confinement in a juvenile facility for up to six months.
- The juvenile court rejected J.P.’s constitutional challenge, adjudicated him delinquent, and ordered placement in a juvenile facility.
- On remand after the Florida Supreme Court required strict scrutiny for juvenile curfews, the Second District Court of Appeal reconsidered the ordinance’s constitutionality.

## Issues

1. Whether the juvenile curfew ordinance infringed minors’ and parents’ fundamental rights such that strict scrutiny applied.
2. Whether the ordinance served a compelling governmental interest and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
3. Whether the ordinance was overbroad by prohibiting substantial amounts of lawful, parental-approved nighttime activity and failing to use less restrictive means.

## Decision

- The Second District Court of Appeal applied strict scrutiny.
- The court accepted that reducing juvenile crime and protecting juveniles from victimization were compelling interests.
- The court held the Tampa juvenile curfew ordinance unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to the stated compelling interests.
- The court reversed J.P.’s delinquency adjudication based on the unconstitutional ordinance.

## Legal Principles

- Juvenile curfew ordinances that substantially burden minors’ fundamental liberties and parental rights are subject to strict scrutiny.
- Under strict scrutiny, the government must show a compelling interest and a tight fit between the restriction and that interest through narrow tailoring.
- A broad curfew that criminalizes substantial lawful, innocuous, and parental-approved conduct, and that provides only limited exceptions, fails strict scrutiny when it is overinclusive relative to its purposes.
- The availability of less restrictive, more targeted public-safety measures may weigh against a sweeping curfew’s constitutionality, particularly where the record does not show the breadth of the restriction is necessary.

## Conclusion

Applying strict scrutiny, the court invalidated Tampa’s juvenile curfew ordinance as insufficiently tailored to its crime-prevention and juvenile-protection goals and reversed the delinquency adjudication entered against J.P. for violating the ordinance.


J.P. v. State, 832 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)