ASFAR Forums - Curfews

Registry

dummy@example.com ([maxh]) — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 07:13:27 +0000

I've begun a registry of towns and counties that have curfews, and information about them. So far, it's limited to California, but I would hope to expand eventually.

I'll post it up here when it begins to get respectable.

Curfew idea

dummy@example.com (Robesdesaixtare) — Thu, 26 May 2011 04:57:26 +0000

"CHAPTER II.
CURFEW FOR MINORS

Sec. B13-30. Established.

Except as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful for any person under the age of 18 years to loiter, be in or upon, stroll or play in or upon any public street, avenue, highway, road, alley, park, playground or place of amusement or entertainment, vacant lot or other unsupervised place, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. of the following day, unless such person is accompanied by a parent, guardian or other responsible adult having control or custody of such minor; or unless such person is upon an emergency errand or legitimate business directed by his or her parent, guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of the minor.

(Code 1954, § 6.2.1-10; Ord. No. NS-607, § 1, 11-15-54)

Sec. B13-31. Exemptions.

This chapter shall not apply to any minor who shall have gone to a place of amusement or entertainment which he may legally attend prior to 10:00 p.m. wherein a regular program of evening entertainment shall have commenced or have been arranged to commence at 10:00 p.m. or prior thereto and shall have been held over or have been continued beyond 10:00 p.m., and such minor is thereafter returning therefrom directly to his place of residence; nor shall this chapter apply to such minor who shall have left a place of employment or social hall after 10:00 p.m., and such minor is thereafter returning directly to his home or place of residence.

(Code 1954, § 6.2.1-10.1; Ord. No. NS-607, § 1, 11-15-54)

Sec. B13-32. Parental responsibility.

It shall be unlawful for the parent, guardian or other adult person having the control, custody or care of any minor under the age of 18 years to permit, allow or let said minor to violate any provision of this chapter.

(Code 1954, § 6.2.1-10.2; Ord. No. NS-607, § 2, 11-15-54)

Sec. B13-33. Burden of proof.

For the purposes of this chapter, the burden of proof shall be upon the adult person who may accompany the minor to establish the fact of care and custody of the minor. The mere fact that the minor is accompanied by an adult person shall not give rise to a presumption that said adult person did in fact have the care and custody of said minor. The burden of proof shall be met by proof of the fact that said adult person is a person who has received the express permission of the parent or guardian to accompany said minor, or by proof that said adult person has been entrusted with the legal custody of said minor.

(Code 1954, § 6.2.1-10.3; Ord. No. NS-607, § 3, 11-15-54)

Sec. B13-34. Violations by minors.

Any minor violating the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be dealt with pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2, Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code of the State (Welfare and Institutions Code § 200 et seq.).

(Code 1954, § 6.2.1-10.4; Ord. No. NS-607, § 4, 11-15-54)

Sec. B13-35. Violations by adults.

Any parent, guardian or other adult person violating this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall, for the first offense, be fined not less than $25.00 nor more than $50.00 or be confined in the County jail not more than ten days or punished by both such fine and imprisonment. For the second offense, he shall be fined not less than $50.00 nor more than $100.00 or be confined in the County jail not more than 30 days or punished by said fine and imprisonment. For each subsequent offense, such person shall be fined not less than $100.00 nor more than $500.00 or be confined in the County jail not more than 90 days or punished by both said fine and imprisonment."

I mention Santa Clara county, because it is near to me.

Perhaps, in Santa Clara county or elsewhere, a large protest against the curfew should be led after hours, basically daring the officials to make a sweep, if they do, we beat them on first amendment rights, as noted in the other post.

Scores of O.C. teens picked up in 'scared straight' curfew sweep

dummy@example.com (Robesdesaixtare) — Thu, 26 May 2011 02:28:00 +0000

Scores of O.C. teens picked up in 'scared straight' curfew sweep

Sixty-seven underage Orange County teens were rounded up in a massive countywide curfew sweep late Thursday in an effort by dozens of law enforcement agencies to scare the after-hours wanderers straight.
The teens, who ranged in age from 13 to 17, were taken to one of three headquarters, put on jail buses to await their parents' arrival and then shown photos of young men who’d been killed in after-curfew incidents.
The sweep was meant to prevent youngsters from being victims of or participants in gang crimes, according to the Orange County district attorney’s office.
Curfews in Orange County begin at 10 p.m. or 11 p.m., depending on the city, and last until 5 a.m. Minors are banned from going out in public during these hours unless they’re with a parent or guardian or qualify for an exemption.
Among the offenders late Thursday were college-bound students, reputed gang members, a 13-year-old on probation for kidnapping and more than one drunken teen.
Late in the night, the minors and their parents met with representatives of the district attorney’s office and the probation department to discuss the possible consequences of being out past curfew.
One by one, they were asked to look at large poster boards filled with photos of corpses and asked whether this was how they wanted to end up.
“It’s a very good thing if we get kids when they’re young and we get them off the street,” Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas told officers before the sweep. “Clearly they’re not doing anything good if they’re out there after 10 o’clock.”
About 300 officers participated in the sweep.

The Constitutionality of Curfews

dummy@example.com (Agnapostate) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:37:43 +0000

Many curfews contain 1st Amendment exemptions typically worded along these lines:

"Defenses: It is a defense to prosecution under subsection that the minor was:
[...] 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."

(If there isn't an exemption specifically included, it should be implied, as the entire nation is governed by the Constitution.) Hence, is it possible that one could simply claim protection under the constitutional exemption if, for instance, they were wearing a sticker or button that said "I'm Protesting the Curfew" and argued that this was a valid exercise of their 1st Amendment rights?

Also, police officers are currently permitted to detain people if they have reasonable suspicion that they've committed a crime. (Hence their ability to detain youthful looking people for curfew violation.) Since police officers inetivably must ask the age of a suspected curfew violator, couldn't they claim that this violated their 4th or 5th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and self-incrimination? Stop and identify statutes that require a suspect reveal their name (and possibly address) have been ruled to be constitutional in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, but couldn't the requirement that a person reveal their age be ruled unconstitutional? I understand that some states and municipalities have exemptions that address this also.