Curfews For Teens: Are They The Answer?

[CanuckMA]

And what happens when the kid either does not have, or does not want to produce ID?

We live in a society where you do not have to carry any form of ID with you. The only reason you must produce a drivers license when stopped is because you need to prove that you are allowed to drive. It happens to be a form of ID.

Walking down the street does not require a license. My 16 yo never carries any ID with him. He doesn't have any.

I never carry my wallet when I go for a walk around the neihbourhood.

 

[jks9199]

I have mixed feelings about curfews. They can be an effective law enforcement tool, but must be designed and enforced with reasonable common sense.

Very simply -- and having been a kid and done it myself -- there's nothing good that can come of a high school age kid being out and about in the wee hours (say 12:00 AM to 5:00 AM), without a reason. Coming home from work, going to work or school, even plain PT before school can be a reason. Just "chillin' with my buddies" isn't one. It just leads to stupidity... Especially when parents don't know what their kids are up to. Which is something I see all too often...

Carrying ID is a different question. Some states do require you to carry ID and present it when questioned by the police (and this has been held to be constitutional). In any case, it's a good idea to carry some sort of ID when out and about; a simple fall can result in unconciousness, for example, or you could get hit by a car (like your mother always warned you ) In most US states, there is a provision to obtain a "walker's ID" or "official photo identification" even for kids. I don't recommend this till early teens, just because things can change too much and there shouldn't be as much need... Though there are reasons like flying where it may be a good idea.

 

[Brian King]

I like the idea of curfews (and strict truancy enforcement) but then I am well beyond 18 years old. I see it as providing many tools to many users. Briefly

For the officer on the street it gives them another tool to legally interact with teens and pre teens that they see out on the streets, a chance to get to know the kids in the neighborhood and to cull out the troubled ones and see that they get the help that they need.

For the small business owner it gives them a tool to clear gangs of youths from hanging out at the front of their business without their having to engage in conflict or be the “bad guy” and put themselves or their business at further risk

For the parents it gives them a tool to help them control their children if they are having a hard time with that sort of thing. It will help parents to set a behavior standard. It will give one less thing for teens and parents to argue over and about.

For the young people it will give the good ones another tool to help them avoid circumstances that might be compromising. The excuse of curfew can be a tool for some to use to help combat peer pressure. For the kids that are having trouble adjusting to societies norms it will be wake up call (for the young people, their parents and the authorities)

For the city it will help to identify those young people that are in danger those that may be in abusive or negligent households or situations and help to identify runaways.

Regarding carrying ID
I think it is selfish (no offense intended) for adults especially to not carry ID for the reasons that jks9199 stated. Being injured and not having ID will increase the cost of care and can make identifying and notifying family more difficult if not impossible as a couple of examples.

Regards
Brian King

 

[jks9199]

About 10 years or so ago, in my area, a female police officer and (as I recall) triathlete was doing a bike ride. She got hit by a car, and the only reason she was identified was a handcuff key on her keychain. She had no ID on her, and the officers responding to the scene realized that with a cuff key, there was a good chance she was a cop, and began making calls to the area agencies. Had she simply carried any ID card at all, even a homemade card, time could have been saved.

For younger kids, I'd consider something like putting your phone number on the bike itself with an etching tool, for example, or nametags in helmets.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Speaking from the perspective of a law enforcement officer:

1. If there is a high crime area with a articulable demographic committing a disproportinate number of crimes, in this case juveniles, an officer already has a reason to stop those people. In legal terms, it is called the totality of the circumstances. Obviously, some other things must exist for the officer to stop them, such as no nearby open businesses, furtive movements (attempting to hide objects, suddenly walking away at police approach), but really, there is a reason to stop them without a curfew.

Also, at least in California, I can detain a juvenile to place him into protective custody for their own protection. Therefore, if I see a juvenile out at 1 am in the morning, I have every right to stop them to check on their well-being. If I discover that they are up to no good, then I can further detain/arrest them for an investigation. There is no need for a curfew law.

2. Um, what country do we live in again? I am continually amazed when people say things such as, “they dont have any business out at 1am anyway.”

Really people. This country was founded on the principles of freedom, in this context, the freedom to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. How reasonable is it to stop someone simply because of their age? How about because they are black or hispanic?

Now, I understand that minors are not treated the same as adults. But legally, this almost always is a matter of offering them more protection under the law then adults, not less. In terms of voting, there is a Constitutional Amendment (the highest law of the land) that regulates that, therefore it is legal.

As a side notes:

1. You do not have to carry ID on you at all times. The U.S. Supreme Court says that you do not. You only need a license if you are driving, because that is a privilage, not a right. One can freeely travel thoughout the U.S. without driving a car. The Hibel case used as a reference states that one only need to identify oneself in order to be in compliance with the law, not that one has to provide a documented proof of identity. There is a big difference.

 

[Empty Hands]

If there is a high crime area with a articulable demographic committing a disproportinate number of crimes, in this case juveniles, an officer already has a reason to stop those people.

How reasonable is it to stop someone simply because of their age? How about because they are black or hispanic?

How do you reconcile these two statements?

 

[Phoenix44]

why would a 15yo, regardless of the day of the week, be out at 1am?

First of all, according to those articles, the curfew is 9 PM, not 1 AM. And as the parent of two teenagers, neither of whom has been in trouble with the law, I can offer a lot of perfectly innocent reasons kids would be out after 9 PM:

Concert, reahearsing for a school play, watching a school play, sporting event, school band concert, charitable activities, cramming for a test at the library, studying with friends, Broadway show, job, tutoring, fencing lessons, gymnastics training, drivers ed, Grandpa's 80th birthday party, rehearsing with your garage band, watching a fireworks display, Bar Mitzvah, martial arts classes, playing Guitar Hero at a friend's house, wedding, doctor's appointment, midnight mass, science research symposium--I can keep going on and on and on.

As for adults, well, I personally think I have the right to be out whenever I damn well please. Two nights ago I went to see a friend play guitar at a club. My partner is a prog rock keyboardist--he frequently comes home at 3-4 AM. I don't get home from the dojo until 11-11:30; sometimes we go out for a beer or sandwich after training.

So is that OK with you?

My point is, should I have to ask permission to live my honest little life? Who gets to decide whether it's "OK" for me or my kid to come home at midnight? You? The mayor? Do I have to show "proof" to that I was at the dojo?

Or maybe I can make that decision for myself and my own kids.

And I really have to say that if you don't have any kids of your own, please don't comment on other people's "bad parenting." It is very, VERY hard to raise kids, even good kids. And although I'm not stupid enough to call the police about it, my teenagers frequently want to stay home from school--didn't you?

 

[MJS]

And what happens when the kid either does not have, or does not want to produce ID?

We live in a society where you do not have to carry any form of ID with you. The only reason you must produce a drivers license when stopped is because you need to prove that you are allowed to drive. It happens to be a form of ID.

Walking down the street does not require a license. My 16 yo never carries any ID with him. He doesn't have any.

I never carry my wallet when I go for a walk around the neihbourhood.

I really don't know all the details of the curfew plan, but if I had to guess, I'd say that anyone that is stopped, and if there is reason to believe the kid is under the curfew age, he/she would get taken to the PD or whatever the pickup location is for the parents.

 

[MJS]

First of all, according to those articles, the curfew is 9 PM, not 1 AM. And as the parent of two teenagers, neither of whom has been in trouble with the law, I can offer a lot of perfectly innocent reasons kids would be out after 9 PM:

Concert, reahearsing for a school play, watching a school play, sporting event, school band concert, charitable activities, cramming for a test at the library, studying with friends, Broadway show, job, tutoring, fencing lessons, gymnastics training, drivers ed, Grandpa's 80th birthday party, rehearsing with your garage band, watching a fireworks display, Bar Mitzvah, martial arts classes, playing Guitar Hero at a friend's house, wedding, doctor's appointment, midnight mass, science research symposium--I can keep going on and on and on.

As for adults, well, I personally think I have the right to be out whenever I damn well please. Two nights ago I went to see a friend play guitar at a club. My partner is a prog rock keyboardist--he frequently comes home at 3-4 AM. I don't get home from the dojo until 11-11:30; sometimes we go out for a beer or sandwich after training.

So is that OK with you?

My point is, should I have to ask permission to live my honest little life? Who gets to decide whether it's "OK" for me or my kid to come home at midnight? You? The mayor? Do I have to show "proof" to that I was at the dojo?

Or maybe I can make that decision for myself and my own kids.

And I really have to say that if you don't have any kids of your own, please don't comment on other people's "bad parenting." It is very, VERY hard to raise kids, even good kids. And although I'm not stupid enough to call the police about it, my teenagers frequently want to stay home from school--didn't you?

Well, like I have already said a few times, but it seems to have been missed....yes, people will suffer from this, and the ones who do suffer are usually the innocent parties. Remember my example of the DUI checkpoint? Why am I getting stopped? Is it fair to me? I don't drink and drive, but I still pass thru the checkpoint and if its my number, then so be it. Remember my shoplifting example? People steal, stores need to recover, so prices get raised. I pay for the jerk who doesnt.

As I said before...not every 15 yo is a punk *** kid. But some 15 yos will pay the price because of the bad ones.

If you look at the link that I posted regarding the teen driving laws...it states: 11pm-5am unless the kid is traveling for a job, school, religious activity, etc.

So if there is a legit reason, fine, then there shouldn't be an issue.

And I really have to say that if you don't have any kids of your own, please don't comment on other people's "bad parenting." It is very, VERY hard to raise kids, even good kids. And although I'm not stupid enough to call the police about it, my teenagers frequently want to stay home from school--didn't you?

Sorry, but I call it like I see it. If that bothers you, I'm sorry. Kids learn what they live. Like I also said, my mother raised me for a while as a single parent. I never ran around a store like a wild child. Funny you should say that though. Last Christmas, my wife and I were out shopping. I headed out to the car, and she stayed behind to get a few more things. While she was bending down to get something off of a bottom shelf, a kid probably all of 8, who was pushing a cart with his younger sister in it, crashed into my wifes back, knocking her to the floor. The clueless mother, who was further ahead, simply told the kids to be more careful, not even asking how my wife was. So again, I call it like I see it, and if it bothers you, well, I'm entitled to my opinion just like you are! Perhaps if this clueless woman payed attention to her kid, this wouldn't have happened. As for staying home...I didn't stay home from school for the hell of it. I stayed home because I was sick, and didn't go out. Hell, there're days I don't feel like going to work, but I don't call out sick every time I don't feel like going.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

How do you reconcile these two statements?

If the first quote is read in the context of the entire paragraph, it makes sense.

What I am saying is that one fact, race or age or sex, absent any other articulable facts, is normally insufficient to detain a person. Curfew laws violate this principle.

Now if, based on the statistical analysist, the suspects in a particular high crime area are of a certain age, it goes to the totality of the circumstances related to my stopping of a particular individual. As I said also:

Obviously, some other things must exist for the officer to stop them, such as no nearby open businesses, furtive movements (attempting to hide objects, suddenly walking away at police approach), but really, there is a reason to stop them without a curfew.

The second part that you quoted was a question to put this into context. If it is reasonable to stop, detain, and arrest one category of persons due to a characteristic, why is it not reasonable to stop others of a different characteristic. I was trying to relate the stopping of juveniles for no other reason then being a juvenile to stopping a black or hispanic person based on their race.

 

[MJS]

http://www.courant.com/community/news/hfd/hc-curfew0815.artaug15,0,2131932.story

 

[Phoenix44]

Maybe I'd feel differently if I'd grown up someplace where there was really nothing to do after 9 PM--but I didn't. I'm surprised that so many people who argue against big government and in favor of individual rights somehow justify the same big government dictating what hours my kids or I should be outside my home.

I can think of much better, and fairer, ways to reduce crime than by putting 100% of the population on house arrest.

Chicago instituted some very effective measures that yielded a 25% drop in murders in its highest crime areas (housing projects, gang territories)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec05/chicago_8-17.html

1. Cameras on top of light poles
2. Increased use of traffic stops in high crime areas
3. Targeted police response units
4. Preventing handguns from entering the city
5. Keeping closer watch on ex-felons
6. Participation of community groups

 

[Ninjamom]

........I'm surprised that so many people who argue against big government and in favor of individual rights somehow justify the same big government dictating what hours my kids or I should be outside my home....

So far, I don't think anyone on any side of the political fence has argued that Government should tell you anything.

The argument has been made (and I agree with it) that government can dictate what unemancipated minors can and can't do. Minors do not have the same rights as adults, nor should they.

However, even in cases of curfews for youths, your rights as a parent trump the state's rights. So, if you (the parent) are with your child, that automatically gives your child 'legitimate reason' for being wherever, whenever.

 

[MJS]

Maybe I'd feel differently if I'd grown up someplace where there was really nothing to do after 9 PM--but I didn't. I'm surprised that so many people who argue against big government and in favor of individual rights somehow justify the same big government dictating what hours my kids or I should be outside my home.

IIRC, it was mentioned already on here...if people are not doing anything bad, they really don't have anything to worry about. Like I've said a few times, its the bad apples that ruin the bunch. I know you listed a few reasons for people to be out. But again, there is a purpose and I'd be willing to bet that many just may be going from point A to point B. Ex: From a school function to home. I'm still hardpressed to find a good reason why a 13yo should be outside hanging out, at 3am. BTW, you need to remember that not everyone shares your views. Is it right for a neighbor, who is trying to get sleep, is woken up at 3am because the people who live next door allow their kids to play in the backyard at that hour, yelling, playing, etc.?

Also keep in mind, that the crime in this case, tends to be focused on certain high crime areas.

I can think of much better, and fairer, ways to reduce crime than by putting 100% of the population on house arrest.

Chicago instituted some very effective measures that yielded a 25% drop in murders in its highest crime areas (housing projects, gang territories)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec05/chicago_8-17.html

1. Cameras on top of light poles
2. Increased use of traffic stops in high crime areas
3. Targeted police response units
4. Preventing handguns from entering the city
5. Keeping closer watch on ex-felons
6. Participation of community groups

1) The city where I work actually has done this. Not sure about other large cities though. Not a bad idea at all. Of course, to be as effective as possible, someone should monitor them. Itd be ideal if someone saw a crime in progress, was able to get the cops there and make an arrest.

2) Agreed. Of course I can just hear certain people and/or groups now, crying foul because of this. I'm sure someone would mention profiling.

3) Many PDs already have these. They do work.

4) The dream and goal of every large city I'm sure, however, I'd imagine that would be pretty difficult.

5) Agreed again. I'm all for stiffer penalties against repeat offenders. Of coruse again, you're going to have the bleeding hearts to start talking about how thats not fair, treatment, etc.

6) Many cities already have these. They do work, and people calling in tips have resulted in some good arrests.

 

[MJS]

So far, I don't think anyone on any side of the political fence has argued that Government should tell you anything.

The argument has been made (and I agree with it) that government can dictate what unemancipated minors can and can't do. Minors do not have the same rights as adults, nor should they.

However, even in cases of curfews for youths, your rights as a parent trump the state's rights. So, if you (the parent) are with your child, that automatically gives your child 'legitimate reason' for being wherever, whenever.

Taken from the article:

"Across the street, Alexis Ordonez, 12, who was playing on the sidewalk with his parents, which is allowed"

In this case, just as you mention, this 12yo wouldn't be bothered.

 

[tshadowchaser]

First taken from my own experience as a youth. Walking home from a friends home after a study group I was randomly stopped by police simply because I was walking at an “odd hour” according to police. I was stopped and interrogated for over an hour , only 30 feet from my front door. Beside the questions some poking with flashlights and heavy handed handling while they frisked me occurred. I had done nothing wrong, was not drinking , and as I said before was 30 feet from my front door when stopped, all because the police felt like enforcing a local ordinance. Complaints to the police the next day by my parents only got a “ he was out after hours” response.

Perhaps more police presence both on foot and in patrol cars is needed in high crime areas. Stopping groups and individuals that seem to be trying to avoid police is more of an answer than stopping those that just appear to be under age. Reckless driving, speeding, or overly cautious overly slow driving might be indicators of something amiss with the driver, but to just stop all who have a young look is targeting and should not be allowed

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Personally, I think that most of you are looking at this in the wrong context. You are looking at it from a personal point of view. For instance, you dont think kids need to be out, so they shouldnt. Or, if the parents were doing their job, then the kids wouldnt be outside at that time.

Quite honestly, none of that has anything to do with it. On top of that, in order for the police to be actually effective, rather than having a mere feel-good law on the books, law enforcement already has the tools that they need in this context.

Let me tell you how I view this:

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution secures that people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this amendment, it does not say anything about only those persons 18 years of age and older get this right. And, this amendment has long been constitutionally upheld to include juveniles.

Question: How constitutionally reasonable is it to detain and arrest someone, anyone, when no particular acts of wrongdoing can be seen? In other words, is it reasonable to stop a 15 year old walking down the street at 1am without evidence that that person is committing a crime against a person or property? Whose mere presence alone is a crime?

Now, I understand about the fear of involvement in criminal activities amongst that age group is high. But let me give you a logical extension of this:

In a particular neighborhood, the vast majority of crimes are committed by black males. Therefore, the city enacts an ordinance stating that due to the high crime rate, black males can be stopped for not other reason then being outside between the hours of 10pm and 5 am.

Would this be acceptable to you???


Again, because in this country we recognize that those under 18 are typically unable to fully care for themselves, it is reasonable for an officer to stop and check on a juvenile based on age alone in order to check on their well-being. And, if during that stop, the police find evidence of a crime, they can take further legal steps. So in effect, this curfew law doesnt really give a cop who knows what he is doing any further powers, other then to take someones freedoms away for thier mere presence.

Oh, and another thing you all might not be recognizing. The police can talk to anyone. I can even suspect a crime and go talk to the person I believe is a suspect. It is called a consensual encounter. It happens all the time, and good police officers use it as a means to detering crime.

Curfew laws are for lazy cops and city council members who dont want to do their jobs properly.

 

[jks9199]

Let me tell you how I view this:

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution secures that people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this amendment, it does not say anything about only those persons 18 years of age and older get this right. And, this amendment has long been constitutionally upheld to include juveniles.

Question: How constitutionally reasonable is it to detain and arrest someone, anyone, when no particular acts of wrongdoing can be seen? In other words, is it reasonable to stop a 15 year old walking down the street at 1am without evidence that that person is committing a crime against a person or property? Whose mere presence alone is a crime?

This is the problem with any status offense; it makes a particular status, being a juvenile in this case, an offense all by itself.

Again, because in this country we recognize that those under 18 are typically unable to fully care for themselves, it is reasonable for an officer to stop and check on a juvenile based on age alone in order to check on their well-being. And, if during that stop, the police find evidence of a crime, they can take further legal steps. So in effect, this curfew law doesnt really give a cop who knows what he is doing any further powers, other then to take someones freedoms away for thier mere presence.

One thing a curfew law does do is give police something to do with those kids. Curfew laws generally define where a kid is to be taken when found out late, whether that's returned home or taken to someplace where the parents are contacted and required to pick them up.

Oh, and another thing you all might not be recognizing. The police can talk to anyone. I can even suspect a crime and go talk to the person I believe is a suspect. It is called a consensual encounter. It happens all the time, and good police officers use it as a means to detering crime.

Consensual encounters are a great tool, and I really do wonder just what lesson it seems I missed when I see younger officers who have apparently found a GO that says they can't get out of the car and can't just talk to people... Heck, I've gotten some great arrests by just chatting with someone!

Curfew laws are for lazy cops and city council members who dont want to do their jobs properly.

This is something I can definitely agree with; they look like you're doing something, but really never produce much.

 

[Ninjamom]

For those interested in the constitutionality of juvenile curfews from the point-of-view of the Federal courts, I found an excellent review article in the May 05 issue of Harvard Law Review, here.

It is long and detailed, but covers all the usual arguments, pro and con. The punchline: the Supreme Court has never directly ruled on their constitutionality, but has let several lower court rulings allowing curfews stand. The Federal District court rulings are wide-ranging and inconsistent (surprise!).

 

[Phoenix44]

So far, I don't think anyone on any side of the political fence has argued that Government should tell you anything.

The argument has been made (and I agree with it) that government can dictate what unemancipated minors can and can't do.

Actually, that argument has been made. (Check the posts on 8/13 10:08 AM and 10:11 AM)