City Leaders Say Curfew A Success

[The Straight Story]

City Leaders Say Curfew A Success
Friday, July 18, 2008 7:10 AM

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Six weeks after a citywide curfew took effect, city leaders said the initiative is successful.

The curfew requires children younger than 13 years old to be off the streets by sunset and teenagers younger than 18 to be inside by midnight, 10TV's Kevin Landers reported.

Police have picked up 23 offenders since the law took effect on June 5.

Some teenagers told 10TV News that they like the message the curfew is sending.

"I think it will lower the crime rate," said James Robinson, 18. "There's a lot of other kids who are a lot younger doing stuff after (midnight) that they shouldn't be doing."

"I think it's a good idea because if it would have been in effect six months ago, my boyfriend wouldn't have been in jail because he would have been in the house because he's under 18," said Abalin Adams, 16.

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2008/07/18/story_curfew.html?sid=102

[aspergris]

1. Curfews in WA state otoh are generally unconstitutional

Unless very narrowly tailored, and even then...

http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Legal/curfew/juvenile.aspx

In Washington State, the enactment of juvenile curfews and parental responsibility ordinances has been accompanied by concerns about their validity ever since the state supreme court's 1973 decision in Seattle v. Pullman, 82 Wn.2d 794 (1973). In that decision, the court held a Seattle curfew ordinance to be unconstitutional, while stating that juvenile curfew ordinances "may be permissible where they are specific in their prohibitions and necessary in curing a demonstrated social evil."

In 1994, the Washington State Legislature provided specific statutory authority for cities and towns to enact juvenile curfews "for the purpose of preserving the public safety or reducing acts of violence by or against juveniles at such rates as to be beyond the capacity of the police to assure public safety." RCW 35.21.635; RCW 35A.11.210; RCW 13.32A.050. These statutes prohibit criminal penalties for curfew violations.

Despite legislative approval, curfew ordinances have not fared well in Washington courts. In January 2003, the state supreme court in City of Sumner v. Walsh, 148 Wn.2d 490 (2003), invalidated Sumner's juvenile curfew and parental responsibility ordinance on the ground that it was unconstitutionally vague. The court held that Sumner's ordinance, which makes it unlawful for juveniles to "remain" in a public place during certain hours, was unconstitutionally vague because "it does not provide 'ascertainable standards for locating the line between innocent and unlawful behavior'." The court noted that "it may be difficult for a city to draft a curfew ordinance that is not unconstitutionally vague." The court did not address the other constitutional arguments raised by the plaintiff.

Previously, in June 1997, Division One of the Washington State Court of Appeals held that the City of Bellingham's juvenile curfew ordinance "infringes on minors' fundamental freedom of movement and expression and is not narrowly tailored to address the problem of juvenile crime" and is unconstitutionally vague. State v. J.D., 86 Wn. App. 501 (1997). Under the Bellingham ordinance, minors 15 years old or younger were prohibited from being in any public area of the city's central business district between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Minors in certain specified situations were exempt from the curfew.

Shortly after the state court of appeals decision in State v. J.D., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared a City of San Diego, California juvenile curfew ordinance to be unconstitutional for reasons similar to those relied upon by the state court of appeals in State v. J.D. See Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 1997).

Nevertheless, curfew ordinances have survived judicial scrutiny in other jurisdictions. For example, in Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1127 (1994), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Dallas, Texas juvenile curfew ordinance, rejecting a challenge based upon grounds of equal protection and a parent's right to rear children without undue governmental interference.

The court decisions from this state and the Ninth Circuit (in which Washington State is located) striking down juvenile curfew ordinances call into question the constitutional validity of the curfew and parental responsibility ordinances that have been enacted by many cities and towns in this state. Nevertheless, they do not close the door entirely on the possibility of enacting a valid juvenile curfew or parental responsibility ordinance. If a city or town has enacted or is considering enacting a curfew or parental responsibility ordinance, MRSC recommends that the city or town attorney beconsulted concerning the impact of these court decisions, on whether there may be sufficient legal justification for a juvenile curfew, and on how an ordinance may be properly crafted or amended to comply with constitutional limitations.