Nunez v. City of San Diego
114 F.3d 935 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A juvenile curfew ordinance is unconstitutional if it is impermissibly vague or if it is not narrowly tailored with sufficient exceptions to serve a compelling government interest, thereby infringing upon the fundamental rights of minors and their parents under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- The City of San Diego enacted a juvenile curfew ordinance in 1947.
- The ordinance makes it unlawful for any person under 18 to "loiter, idle, wander, stroll or play" in public places between 10 p.m. and daylight.
- The ordinance provides four exceptions: being accompanied by a parent/guardian, being on an emergency errand, returning directly from a school-sponsored activity, or being engaged in legitimate work.
- Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor for both the minor and their parent or guardian.
- In 1994, the City of San Diego adopted a resolution to enforce the existing curfew ordinance aggressively.
- Plaintiff minors allege the ordinance prevents them from engaging in various lawful activities after curfew hours, such as volunteering, attending concerts, and studying with friends.
- Plaintiff parents allege the ordinance interferes with their fundamental right to rear their children as they see fit.
Procedural Posture:
- Minors and their parents (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of San Diego in the U.S. District Court, challenging the facial constitutionality of the city's juvenile curfew ordinance.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of San Diego, concluding the ordinance was constitutional.
- The district court reasoned that the ordinance only prohibited aimless conduct, imposed a minimal burden on minors, and was narrowly tailored.
- The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 San Diego juvenile curfew ordinance, which makes it a misdemeanor for minors to "loiter, idle, wander, stroll or play" in public places between 10 p.m. and daylight, violate the Fourteenth Amendment by being unconstitutionally vague and by infringing on the fundamental rights of minors and their parents?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiggins, Circuit Judge.
Yes, the San Diego juvenile curfew ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The ordinance is unconstitutional because it is both impermissibly vague and, when construed broadly to avoid vagueness, is not narrowly tailored to serve the city's compelling interests. First, the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because the prohibited conduct—to "loiter, wander, idle, stroll or play"—is not defined with sufficient definiteness for ordinary people to understand what is prohibited, and it encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by police. Any narrow construction, such as prohibiting only "aimless" conduct, renders the ordinance's specific exceptions nonsensical and is itself inherently vague. Second, if the ordinance is interpreted broadly to mean prohibiting mere presence in public, it fails strict scrutiny. While the city has a compelling interest in reducing juvenile crime and victimization, the ordinance is not narrowly tailored. It sweeps up a substantial amount of innocent and constitutionally protected conduct, such as activities protected by the First Amendment, and its exceptions are too narrow to save it. Finally, the ordinance unconstitutionally burdens parents' fundamental due process right to rear their children by substituting the state's judgment for the parents' without proper justification.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a high constitutional standard for juvenile curfew ordinances within the Ninth Circuit. It mandates that such ordinances must be precisely drafted to avoid vagueness and must include robust exceptions for a wide range of legitimate activities to be considered narrowly tailored. The ruling signals that a generalized interest in preventing crime is insufficient to justify a broad, sweeping restriction on the fundamental rights of minors and their parents. Future ordinances will likely face successful challenges unless they are more targeted, such as focusing on gang activity directly, or include significant exceptions for First Amendment activities and other common nocturnal pursuits that parents may permit.
