In re Osman (109 Ohio App. 3d 731, 1996)

Joseph E. Mahoney, Judge.

On December 9, 1994, appellant, Ronald J. Osman, Jr., then aged fourteen, attended a dance at a local church. The dance ended at approximately 10:00 p.m., at which time appellant and his friends began walking around Ravenna before going to a Taco Bell restaurant for some food. At 11:45 p.m., Patrolman Timothy Mullen of the Ravenna Police Department observed appellant running across a street. Officer Mullen stopped appellant and informed him that it was past curfew. The officer then drove appellant home where they were met by appellant’s father.

Upon returning appellant to his home, Officer Mullen, who had only been on the job six days, did not intend to cite appellant for a curfew violation. While he was at appellant’s home, however, Officer Mullen received a call on his radio from Sergeant Eatinger, of the Ravenna Police Department, instructing him to charge appellant with a violation of the Ravenna Curfew Ordinance which generally requires fourteen-year-olds to be off the streets by 11:00 p.m.

On January 12, 1995, a complaint was filed against appellant in Portage County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, alleging that appellant was an unruly child due to violation of the Ravenna Curfew Ordinance. The matter proceeded to a hearing before a referee on April 26,1995. The only witness to testify at the hearing besides Officer Mullen was Sue Osman, the mother of Ronald, who testified as to his age only. The referee found appellant to be an unruly child and sentenced him to five days’ detention and one year probation. The referee then suspended all five days of the detention. Appellant timely filed objections to the referee’s report. On May 22, 1995, the trial court conducted a hearing on appellant’s objections. On June 5, 1995, the trial court overruled appellant’s objections and adopted the referee’s decision.

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal with the following assignments of error:

“1. The trial court did error [sic ] in upholding the referee’s findings and not declaring the City of Ravenna’s Curfew Ordinance unconstitutional.

“2. The trial court’s error [sic] against the manifest weight of the evidence in following the referee’s findings that the state met its burden of proof on the identification issue.

“3. The trial court judge abused his discretion and erred as a matter of law and denied appellant * * * due process of law by delegation and deferring to the referee’s judgment, that which the judge has a duty and authority to review being the objection to the refereefs] findings on whether the burden of proof was met in the identification of the appellant-plaintiff.

“4. The trial court’s error as a matter of law and as an abuse of its discretion in upholding the referee[’s] [sic] findings of a disposition of five days in the juvenile detention center when the mandatory statutory hearing required under R.C. 2151.354 was not held to determine if confinement disposition was necessary treatment for an unruly child (appellant).”

In the first assignment of error, appellant contends that Ravenna’s Curfew Ordinance is unconstitutional as it is overly vague. Ravenna Ordinance 509.08 provides:

“(b) No minor fourteen years of age or older and under the age of sixteen years shall be upon the streets, sidewalks, parks or other public places within the City between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day.