M.R. v. State, 788 So. 2d 957

PER CURIAM.

We have for review M.R. v. State, 111 So.2d 995 (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!;.]

Id. at 995. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.

In 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.

It is so ordered.

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

Case Details

Case Name: M.R. v. State

Court Name: Supreme Court of Florida

Date Published: Jun 14, 2001

Citations: 788 So. 2d 957; 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 413; 2001 Fla. LEXIS 1177; No. SC00-2478

Docket Number: No. SC00-2478

Court Abbreviation: Fla.