Anonymous v. City of Rochester
13 N.Y.3d 35, 915 N.E.2d 593 (2009)
Rule of Law:
A juvenile curfew ordinance violates substantive due process if it fails to include an exception for parental consent and fails to demonstrate a substantial nexus between the curfew hours and the reduction of juvenile crime under intermediate scrutiny.
Facts:
- In 2006, the Rochester City Council enacted a nighttime curfew making it unlawful for minors under 17 to be in public places between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. on weekdays, and 12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. on weekends.
- The City Council justified the ordinance by citing a need to reduce juvenile victimization and crime rates during nighttime hours.
- The ordinance provided specific exceptions for employment, emergencies, and school/religious activities, but did not include a general exception for minors acting with parental consent.
- Under the ordinance, police were authorized to detain minors found in violation and take them to a designated location.
- A father and son (Plaintiffs) wished for the son to engage in activities during curfew hours without government interference.
- The ordinance classified a curfew infraction as a 'violation' under the Penal Law, punishable by up to 15 days in jail.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (father and son) filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court (trial court) seeking a declaration that the ordinance was unconstitutional.
- The Supreme Court granted the City's motion to dismiss, finding the ordinance valid.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court, declared the ordinance unconstitutional, and enjoined its enforcement.
- The Defendants (City of Rochester) appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the City of Rochester's juvenile nighttime curfew ordinance violate the substantive due process rights of minors regarding free movement and the substantive due process rights of parents regarding the control of their children's upbringing?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones
Yes, the curfew is unconstitutional because it fails intermediate scrutiny and impermissibly interferes with parental rights. The Court determined that while strict scrutiny applies to adult movement, 'intermediate scrutiny' is appropriate for minors due to their specific vulnerabilities. Under this test, the City failed to show a 'substantial nexus' between the curfew and crime reduction; the statistics revealed that the vast majority of juvenile crime occurred outside of curfew hours and that adults were responsible for most nighttime crime. Furthermore, the ordinance violated parents' substantive due process rights to raise their children by failing to include an exception that would allow minors to be out with parental consent, a feature found in constitutionally valid curfews elsewhere.
Dissent - Pigott
No, the ordinance is a valid exercise of the City's police power to protect vulnerable youth. The dissent argued that minors do not possess a fundamental right to free movement at night, and therefore the law should only be subject to rational basis review. Even under intermediate scrutiny, the dissent believed the majority unfairly manipulated the statistics; naturally, more crime occurs during the day when people are awake, but that does not negate the City's important interest in preventing the violent nighttime deaths of children. The dissent emphasized that the legislative judgment of local officials regarding safety should be respected.
Concurrence - Graffeo
Yes, the ordinance is invalid, but primarily because it conflicts with state statutory law regarding the detention of minors. The concurrence argued that under the preemption doctrine, the local ordinance conflicted with the New York Family Court Act. State law only permits warrantless custody of a minor for a 'crime' (misdemeanor or felony), but the curfew infraction was only classified as a 'violation.' Therefore, the City lacked the legal authority to empower police to take minors into custody for breaking curfew, rendering the ordinance void.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a high bar for municipalities in New York wishing to enact juvenile curfews. By adopting intermediate scrutiny, the Court requires cities to provide empirical data that specifically justifies the restrictions imposed; general concerns about safety are insufficient if the chosen curfew hours do not align with crime statistics. Additionally, the ruling strongly suggests that to survive a due process challenge regarding parental rights, any such ordinance must include a 'parental consent' exception, acknowledging that the state cannot completely usurp the role of the parent in determining appropriate activities for their children.
