Curfew Ordinances: A Note of Caution
(from Maine Townsman, "Legal Notes," November 1997)

This Maine Municipal Association publication is presented for "Classroom Use Only."  Its intended use is to stimulate and aid in discussion and role playing within a classroom setting.

A recent decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia sounds a note of caution for communities contemplating a juvenile curfew ordinance: Make sure there is a solid statistical basis for the restrictions!

The ordinance contested in Hutchins v. District of Columbia, 942 F. Supp. 665 (D. D.C. 1996), was virtually identical to the Dallas, Texas curfew upheld in Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 1993), which has served as a model for similar measures in Maine and around the nation. Both ordinances prohibited minors under 17 from remaining in a public place from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. on week nights and from 12 midnight to 6:00 a.m. on weekends. Both included a variety of defenses or exceptions, such as for travel to and from employment or school, religious or civic activities, which satisfied the Qutb court that the ordinance was sufficiently narrowly tailored to achieve the city's interest in reducing juvenile crime and victimization without impermissibly impinging on the fundamental rights of minors and their parents. In contrast to the Dallas case, however, the Hutchins court struck down the D.C. ordinance as being unsupported by reliable data. In fact, the statistics showed that juvenile crime in D.C. was most likely to occur in the afternoon and at home and that victims were more apt to be family and friends. Thus, the court was not convinced a nighttime curfew was either necessary or effective to reduce juvenile crime. See also Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935 (9th Cir.1997).

The lesson here is clear: Before resorting to a curfew as the cure for youthful mischief, a community should have convincing evidence that it will, in fact, curb the problem. (By R.P.F.)