Curfews For Teens: Are They The Answer?

[Archangel M]

What are you in for kid?

Curfew violation.



Juveniles in my state dont face imprisonment short of a major felony. Juveniles cant even be issued summons, the parents are.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Given the high crime rate in the city, I still stand by my comment. And one would think, given the high attention this situation is getting, that if someone was arrested, you would think it would say in the paper.

Not necessarily. The news services are not the most acurate and infomative sources.

The curfew law isa 30 day trial. It'll be interesting to see the results and what happens after the 30 days.

Actually, the curfew has been in effect since 1993.

Sec. 25-4. Curfew for minors.
It shall be unlawful for any child under the age of eighteen (18) years to loiter on the streets or in any theater or other public place in the city after 9:00 p.m., unless such child is accompanied by his/her parents or guardian, or other adult person into whose care and custody such child has been committed by his/her parent or guardian.

(Code 1977, § 24-5; Ord. No. 57-93, 9-16-93)


It seems to me that this is just their novel way of enforcing it to hopefully solve a problem.

Is there a lgeit reason for the kid to be out? If the kid was coming home from work, a school activity, with a parent, etc., then no, nothing should happen. There is a legit reason. Just being out for the sake of being out at 3am, to hang out on the street corner, to hang in front of a business. Come on. So now you could have an elderly person or a female who could feel intimidated by this group, which now causes the store to lose business.

Since when is the law supposed to be about arresting people because others may feel intimidated.

I know a particular group that might feel intimidated when black people come around. Should we have a law against that?

I'm assuming you've read this entire thread before jumping in? The post I quoted was made by someone who commented on something I said about an incident that happened in the city that I work for. Here, let me point you to the posts in question. Here, and here. I would think that as a LEO, you're familiar with ways to get around things. I mean, you see a car, that you know is being driven by a known drug dealer. But to pull him over for no reason...well, we know that isn't right. So you drive behind and wait until he fails to signal for a turn. There is your reason to pull him over, get a look in the car, etc. But I don't think I need to be saying this.

Yes I did. And, even absent a curfew law, there are many reasons to stop people, including juveniles. One can even stop them, just as you can adults, to check on their well-being based on articulitable facts.

But again, I do not see how you justify detaining and arresting (a citation is an arrest) someone because they cannot give you a legitimate reason(whatever that may be) to be out.

Thank you! Now we're getting somewhere! I think the idea of special groups to focus on problem areas are great and they actually do work too!

Exactly. That is why this type of action should be taken. Not some indiscriminate law based on simple fear.

 

[MJS]

Not necessarily. The news services are not the most acurate and infomative sources.

Well, I agree with you on that.

Actually, the curfew has been in effect since 1993.

Sec. 25-4. Curfew for minors.
It shall be unlawful for any child under the age of eighteen (18) years to loiter on the streets or in any theater or other public place in the city after 9:00 p.m., unless such child is accompanied by his/her parents or guardian, or other adult person into whose care and custody such child has been committed by his/her parent or guardian.

(Code 1977, § 24-5; Ord. No. 57-93, 9-16-93)


It seems to me that this is just their novel way of enforcing it to hopefully solve a problem.

Hmm...I guess I must've missed the 1993 part. Interesting though, that a law thats been on the books for all this time, and they're picking now to really be a stickler on enforcing it.

Since when is the law supposed to be about arresting people because others may feel intimidated.

I know a particular group that might feel intimidated when black people come around. Should we have a law against that?

With all due respect, I think that you're twisting my words to suit your purpose. I think you fully know what I meant.

Yes I did. And, even absent a curfew law, there are many reasons to stop people, including juveniles. One can even stop them, just as you can adults, to check on their well-being based on articulitable facts.

But again, I do not see how you justify detaining and arresting (a citation is an arrest) someone because they cannot give you a legitimate reason(whatever that may be) to be out.

Well, like I said, then whats the sense of having the law? I mean, if anyone can be stopped at any time, then its simply just a matter of the cops being more strict during their patrols. See a kid out at 3am, stop, well being check, etc. less the curfew law and taking them into custody. Of course, knowing how some people are, they'd still cry foul and say that the cops are just harrassing them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Stop the kid and you're violating the rights. Don't stop the kid and you're not doing your job. Go figure.

Exactly. That is why this type of action should be taken. Not some indiscriminate law based on simple fear.

Yup

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

With all due respect, I think that you're twisting my words to suit your purpose. I think you fully know what I meant.

Not trying to twist your words, only trying to give you a perspective of why some people feel the way that they do regarding these laws.

When we start to select out specific classes of people for attention that merely amount to controlling there whereabouts, that it can be taken to ridiculous extremes.

And in the history of the governments of the world, are we to trust that they would be so benevolent?

And remember, I am a part of that system. Yet I still retain a healthy skepticism about it.

 

[Archangel M]

The Harvard Review has a very interesting analysis of Juvenile Curfew Law.

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/118/May05/Notes/Juvenile_CurfewsFTX.pdf

At its core it says that the federal circuits have had difficulty coming to a concensus (shocking) in regards to these laws. They have a long history in the country, by the end of the 19th century they were commonplace. There are numerous issues regarding the rights of children. There are already various laws that limit the rights of juveniles (alcohol, pornorgraphy possession, etc) and the feds have had difficulty balancing (balancing is a legal term that involves individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution weighed against state rights such as public safety, protection of vulnerable persons etc.) the right involved. The federal courts have upheld some of these laws and shot others down. The Dallas curfew is held as the "gold standard" in regards to the court and their balancing tests.

Heres Dallas's Ordinance.

The following is the text of Dallas, Tex.’s curfew ordinance. Since it passed strict scrutiny from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1993, it is provided as an illustration of what local government leaders may consider when drafting a curfew ordinance. Local leaders should contact their city attorneys prior to taking any action. All local governments should list the reasons for curfew adoption either in legislative history or specifically in the ordinance.

MUNICIPAL CODE SEC. 31-33 CURFEW HOURS FOR MINORS

(a) Definitions. In this section:

(1) CURFEW HOURS means:
(A) 11:00 p.m. on any Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday until 6:00 a.m. of the following day; and
(B) 12:01 a.m. until 6:00 a.m. on any Saturday or Sunday.

(2) EMERGENCY means an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action. The term includes, but is not limited to, a fire, a natural disaster, an automobile accident, or any situation requiring immediate action to prevent serious bodily injury or loss of life.

(3) ESTABLISHMENT means any privately-owned place of business operated for a profit to which the public is invited, including, but not limited to, any place of amusement or entertainment.

(4) GUARDIAN means:
(A) a person who, under court order, is the guardian of the person of a minor; or
(B) a public or private agency with whom a minor has been placed by a court. (5) MINOR means any person under 17 years of age.

(6) OPERATOR means any individual, firm, association, partnership, or corporation operation, managing, or conducting any establishment. The term includes the members or partners of an association or partnership and the officers of a corporation.

(7) PARENT means a person who is:
(A) a natural parent, adoptive parent, or step-parent of another person; or
(B) at least 18 years of age and authorized by a parent or guardian to have the care and custody of a minor.

(8) PUBLIC PLACE means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common area of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.

(9) REMAIN means to:
(A) linger or stay; or
(B) fail to leave premises when requested to do so by a police officer or the owner, operator, or other person in control of the premises.

(10) SERIOUS BODILY INJURY means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

(b) Offenses:

(1) A minor commits an offense if he remains in any public place or on the premises of any establishment within the city during curfew hours.

(2) A parent or guardian of a minor commits an offense if he knowingly permits, or by insufficient control allows, the minor to remain in any public place or on the premises of any establishment within the city during curfew hours.

(3) The owner, operator, or any employee of an establishment commits an offense if he knowingly allows a minor to remain upon the premises of the establishment during curfew hours.

(c) Defenses:

(1) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection

(b) that the minor was:

(A) accompanied by the minor's parent or guardian;

(B) on an errand at the direction of the minor's parent or guardian, without any detour or stop;

(C) in a motor vehicle involved in interstate travel;

(D) engaged in an employment activity, or going to or returning home from an employment activity, without any detour or stop;

(E) involved in an emergency;

(F) on the sidewalk abutting the minor's residence or abutting the residence of a next-door neighbor if the neighbor did not complain to the police department about the minor's presence;

(G) attending an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by the city, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor, or going to or returning home from, without any detour or stop, an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by the city, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor;

(H) exercising First Amendment rights protected by the United States Constitution, such as the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right of assembly; or

(I) married or had been married or had disabilities of minority removed in accordance with State law.

(2) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (c)

(3) that the owner, operator, or employee of an establishment promptly notified the police department that a minor was present on the premises of the establishment during curfew hours and refused to leave.

(d) Enforcement: Before taking any enforcement action under this section, a police officer shall ask the apparent offender's age and reason for being in the public place. The officer shall not issue a citation or make an arrest under this section unless the officer reasonably believes that an offense has occurred and that, based on any response and other circumstances, no defense in Subsection

(d) is present.

(e) Penalties:

(1) A person who violates a provision of this chapter is guilty of a separate offense for each day or part of a day during which the violation is committed, continued, orpermitted. Each offense, upon conviction, is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500

 

[MJS]

Not trying to twist your words, only trying to give you a perspective of why some people feel the way that they do regarding these laws.

When we start to select out specific classes of people for attention that merely amount to controlling there whereabouts, that it can be taken to ridiculous extremes.

And in the history of the governments of the world, are we to trust that they would be so benevolent?

And remember, I am a part of that system. Yet I still retain a healthy skepticism about it.

Ya know, no matter what happens, someone will be upset, someone will be a target, nobody will be happy. Think about it, if a high crime area is the focus of the PD, with them doing a more intensive crackdown in the area, chances are, certain people will feel like they have a target on them.

As for the individual views on this...we all have our own opinions, and right or wrong, we should respect them. I stand by mine. For a parent to allow a young child to be out with no purpose, isn't right IMO. Are these parents going to take responsibility for any and all actions that their child does, or will they try to pass the blame to someone else? I don't think that answer will be hard to find.