Anonymous v. City of Rochester

915 N.E.2d 593 (2009)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Anonymous v. City of Rochester

New York Court of Appeals
915 N.E.2d 593 (2009)

Facts

In 2006 a nighttime curfew was established for juveniles in the city of Rochester, New York (the city) (defendant). The curfew’s purpose was to prevent juveniles from committing crimes or being victimized by crime at night. The Rochester City Council found that a substantial number of children were either the victims or perpetrators of crimes at night. The council believed the curfew would help to reduce these victimizations and criminal acts and promote parental supervision. The curfew was in effect from 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. on weeknights and from midnight until 5:00 a.m. on weekends. The curfew ordinance had a variety of exceptions permitting minors to be out after curfew for employment, travel to and from work, participation at school, religious, or recreational events, and so on. The curfew ordinance did not have an exception for parental authorization. A father and his son (plaintiffs) brought suit seeking to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional on a variety of grounds and to stop its enforcement. The city filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which a trial court granted. The appellate division reversed and halted the enforcement of the curfew. The matter went to the New York Court of Appeals. The court first determined that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate standard for analyzing the curfew. Intermediate scrutiny required an ordinance to be substantially related to an important government interest and required a substantial nexus between the curfew’s goals and the burdens it imposed. The goal of protecting minors with a curfew was spurred in response to three nighttime deaths of minors, although those deaths would not have been prevented by a curfew. The curfew was supported by crime statistics showing minors were the victims or suspects in about 10 percent of violent crimes overnight and were suspected of committing 375 percent more crimes on weekends than on weeknights. The council also cited data from other municipalities with similar juvenile curfews, many of which had exceptions that the Rochester curfew lacked.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)

Dissent (Pigott, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership