Legal Challenges to Juvenile Curfew Laws

These laws restrict minors from public places or businesses during specified curfew hours. Usually, they restrict activities during the evening or nighttime. Supporters of curfew laws say they promote public safety by curbing juvenile delinquency and preventing violent crime.

But a chorus of critics remain. Civil rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have filed lawsuits challenging such laws. Other critics raise questions about the constitutional rights associated with these laws.

Brief History of Curfew Laws

Local governments generally have the power to institute curfew laws. Mayors, through the local government, generally set curfews for the following reasons:

• Juvenile crime and delinquency prevention
• Juvenile protection from potential crimes against them
• The local government may set several types of curfew restrictions, such as:
• Timeframes when citizens may not leave their property (curfew vs. non-curfew hours)
• Areas where curfew is enforced (e.g., downtown or the harbor)
• Penalties for breaking curfew
• To whom the curfew does or does not apply (e.g., youth curfews vs. a curfew applicable to every citizen)

Many municipalities began instituting curfews in the late 1800s. The laws aimed to prevent young people from participating in delinquent activities. In the 1890s, for example, towns and police departments began enforcing curfews to quell “immigrant youth" from criminal behavior.

World War II saw another increase in curfew usage. At that time, many parents were either away or busy helping with war efforts. City curfews allowed police to prevent crime from unsupervised youths more readily. The 1970s saw another wave of curfews to combat growing juvenile crime.

Local governments may also set exceptions to their curfew laws. For example, they may allow exceptions for people to go to work. They may also lift or relax the curfew on weekend nights or during summer months.

Penalties and Enforcement for Curfew Violations

The penalties for disobeying juvenile curfew laws vary considerably. But generally, breaking a curfew law results in misdemeanor charges. Penalties vary, and they may include the following:

• Monetary fines
• Mandatory community service
• Restrictions placed on one's driver's license
• Confinement in juvenile detention centers
• Confinement in a county jail

These consequences don't just apply to minors. These laws often hold a parent or guardian responsible for their child's juvenile crime or curfew violation.

Curfew ordinances must typically incorporate exceptions. These exceptions may include the following:

• Adult-supervised activities
• Attend educational institutions
• Partake in religious events
• Engage in lawful employment during curfew hours
• Participate in First Amendment-protected activities

Violations stemming from emergencies or circumstances are typically exempt from punitive measures.

Enforcement Discretion

Many jurisdictions give law enforcement officers significant discretion when enforcing juvenile curfew laws. Officers often can opt for alternative methods of handling curfew violators other than an arrest or citation. Among others, these interventions may include the following:

• Issuing verbal warnings
• Recommending participation in counseling programs
• Notifying parents or guardians
• Providing a police escort to ensure the minor safely reaches their residence

In contrast, certain regions adopt a more rigorous enforcement approach. Some jurisdictions conduct "curfew sweeps." There, teams of police officers canvass specific areas and apprehend curfew violators.

Constitutional Rights and Legal Challenges

Curfews are a relatively controversial topic. Supporters of curfew laws argue that they protect against juvenile victimization. They also assert that curfews provide fewer opportunities for juveniles to commit crimes. Supporters say this serves a compelling state interest by reducing crime rates.

Critics of curfew laws raise several different objections. Chief among the criticisms is that curfew laws are unconstitutional. They also argue that the laws are too vague and infringe on families' rights to raise their children as they see fit. Several of these arguments are explained below.

Some groups argue that curfew laws are unconstitutional. These challenges often focus on the following constitutional amendments:

• First Amendment: Right to free speech, religion, and assembly
• Fourth Amendment: Protecting against unreasonable searches, seizures, and stops
• Fifth Amendment: Right to due process
• Ninth Amendment: Right to privacy and a right to family autonomy
• Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection of the law and the right to travel

Curfew laws are subject to strict scrutiny. This standard of review applies to laws that impinge constitutional rights. To pass muster under strict scrutiny, the government must show the law does the following:

• Demonstrates a compelling state interest; and
• Is narrowly tailored to achieve the law's objective

In 1991, the city council in Dallas, Texas, passed a juvenile curfew ordinance. The city council held hearings and reviewed data on the increase in juvenile arrests and violence. They cited an increase in nighttime juvenile violence for the law's justification.

The ACLU challenged the ordinance in federal court. In Qutb v. Strauss (1993), the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ordinance. The Court determined the city council demonstrated a compelling state interest in passing the law. The interest involved the reduction of the youth crime rate and victimization of juveniles.

The Court also held that the city council narrowly tailored the ordinance. The curfew achieved its goals while respecting juveniles' constitutional rights. Specifically, the ordinance allowed multiple exceptions to the curfew. These exceptions, the Court said, allowed juveniles to exercise their rights.

Vagueness and Due Process

Some courts have expressed reservations regarding the clarity and specificity of curfew laws. Such ambiguity can confuse citizens, critics say. Vague laws may confuse people about the difference between allowed and prohibited activities. Critics argue this may infringe their due process rights.

Vague statutes are void if they are too general. Courts test for this by determining whether the law is arbitrary and results in erratic or discriminatory enforcement. The law must clearly define the offense. This means ordinary people can understand what conduct it prohibits. It also means law enforcement can enforce it non-arbitrarily. Statutes are void for being overbroad if less restrictive means exist to achieve the law's objective.

Freedom of Assembly

Some critics say curfew laws violate juveniles' First Amendment rights, particularly freedom of assembly and expression. Courts have grappled with balancing public safety concerns and safeguarding First Amendment freedoms. Legal challenges arise when curfew enforcement allegedly interferes with protected activities.

A 1997 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case dealt with several constitutional challenges to a curfew law. The city of San Diego, California, passed a law making it illegal for minors to “loiter, idle, wander, stroll or play" in public between 10 p.m. and “daylight." It had four exceptions: adult supervision, emergencies, school-sponsored events, and work.

Several parents and minors sued the city. They alleged the curfew infringed their First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Court ruled that curfew laws typically must include exceptions for minors who engage in First Amendment-protected activities. These activities include religious activities and protests, among many others.

The Court also ruled that the city did not narrowly tailor its curfew law. So, the Court concluded the law was unconstitutional. The Court also held that the law was void for vagueness. The listed activities it prohibited didn't have precise definitions and mainly were equivalent to “hanging out." The Court said this did not give ordinary people notice of the exact conduct it prohibited.

Age Discrimination and Parental Rights

Juvenile curfew laws have faced criticism for being age discriminatory. As noted above, most such laws target young individuals. For instance, Dallas's city ordinance applied to 16-year-olds (and anyone younger). This criticism has led to legal challenges invoking the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Another significant point of contention centers on parental rights. Laws without a parental permission exception have faced scrutiny. Some parents argue that the government should not determine their child's curfew. Their arguments center on the idea that the family, rather than the government, should set their child's curfew.

In 1975, a Pennsylvania District Court (Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown, 401 F. Supp. 124 [M.D. Pa. 1975]) upheld a curfew law in Middletown, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs challenged the law, in part, as violative of the juveniles' Fourteenth Amendment rights and their parents' Ninth Amendment rights. The law generally prohibited minors from being in public at night without adult supervision.

The Court determined that the law did not violate juveniles' Fourteenth Amendment rights. The plaintiffs argued that the borough's choice of 18 years old as the dividing line was arbitrary. The Court concluded the age chosen was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court held that the law was constitutional with regard to the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court also concluded the law did not infringe on parents' ability to raise their children. The Court determined the borough's interest in protecting minors outweighed the parents' right to raise their children as they saw fit. It noted that the law only infringed “minimally" on the parents' ability.

Conclusion and Legal Guidance

Juvenile curfew laws remain a subject of ongoing legal debate and discussion throughout the United States. Courts have rendered varying decisions based on constitutional and civil rights arguments. This has led to a patchwork of regulations and enforcement practices.

Consider seeking legal counsel if you or your child are facing a juvenile curfew law violation. An experienced criminal defense attorney can help you navigate the complexities of these laws. They can provide legal advice and information about the following topics, among others:

• Your fundamental rights and potential legal challenges to curfew laws
• The impact of curfew ordinances on public safety and civil liberties
• General information about the criminal justice system and criminal charges

If your local government charged you with a curfew violation, consider contacting a criminal defense attorney.