By David Johnson <djohnsonthegreat@hotmail.com>

Henry David Thoreau, the prominent 19th century writer, believed that, if you think there is a flaw in a law or custom of society, it is your duty as a citizen to stand up against it, and that if it is wrong, others will join you and it will be changed. This still applies today, as there remain many laws that do not receive the approval of the citizens. Curfew laws are one of these laws. Curfews, which began to appear rapidly in the mid 1990's, restrict minors from being away from home between certain hours of day, depending on the city. Not only do these laws violate the rights of the juveniles they convict; they are immoral, ineffective, and inefficient. Curfew laws upset the natural familial structure of life and violate the parents' 9th Amendment rights. The Supreme Court recognized this need for familial control, and affirmed the importance of a parent's decision. The curfew laws also restrict the rights of the juveniles themselves, as they restrain the kids for a very questionable reason. Curfews have no real effect if the supposed violator's 1st Amendment rights are upheld. There are much more effective methods of dealing with a crime problem, as the enforcement of curfew laws is very costly. Taking all of these factors into account, the curfew laws are mistakes and should be eliminated.

Curfew laws, by their very nature, disrupt the natural and traditional unit of life: the family. The Ninth Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." As the right of parents to raise and discipline their children has been interpreted to be one of these rights, it has become constitutionally protected. However, curfew legislation openly disregards this right by dictating when a child must be at his or her "…dwelling house or usual place of abode…" Not only does this contradict natural law, it is communistic in its attitude of state over family control. This attitude is well represented in this court statement from a hearing of the constitutionality of curfew laws in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 1975. They said "The parents' constitutionally protected interest… which the ordinance infringes only minimally, is outweighed by the [government's] interest in protecting immature minors…" (Bilchik). They are explicitly stating that the government's responsibility to care for juveniles is greater than the parents', and that even though the parents' rights were obstructed, it doesn't matter. Both of these statements are false. In a true republic, the parents shall always have the greatest responsibility for the raising of their children, and courts cannot openly deny the rights of the citizens.

Parents, in fact, play the greatest role in the development and supervision of children, and the Supreme Court has recognized this. In its ruling of the case Hogdson v. Minnesota, the court upheld the requirement of parental permission for a minor's abortion (Bilchik). Not only does this contradict the previous ruling in Pennsylvania, but it shows the great importance of parents, rather than a government, in a child's development. As the parent's consent is necessary for the abortion, the state cannot be the ultimate authority in determining the juvenile's life. Rather, the parents have the highest role, and the government respects this in making and upholding this law, which demonstrates that parents are top when it comes to the raising of a child.

The curfew laws also restrict another of the constitutional rights of juveniles. The Fourth Amendment says "…no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Individuals may not be taken into custody or have their property searched without a warrant or without a good reason as determined by the arresting officer. Law enforcement officials have thus taken advantage of this ‘probable cause' clause, and have argued, like the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in its case Waters v. Barry, that "So long as the officer could reasonably have believed that the individual looked young, the search seizure, or arrest would take place on the basis of probable cause…" (Bilchik). This reason for arrest could indeed be valid under curfew laws. Yet, what kind of a reason is it? Since when is being young a crime? According to Stratos Pahis, a junior and vice president of student government at Rockville High School in Connecticut, "People are starting to realize that the town should be targeting people for what they do and not for who they are." (Taylor). By seizing and arresting young people off the streets without discretion as to what they had been doing, they are not only violating Fourth Amendment rights, but they are ignoring the Catholic solution to a similar problem, dealing with the affect the minister has on the effect of the sacrament. The answer they found came in the phrase "ex opere operandi," which in Latin means "from the working of the work." They concluded that the person who performed the sacrament didn't matter, as long as it was done in good faith. This applies to the curfew situation. It should not matter who was out on the streets. Rather, it should matter what they were doing.

Although some curfew laws anticipate the First Amendment problems with such legislation, by doing so, they bring up more problems with the constitutionality or purpose of curfew. The Cincinnati Municipal Code, in sections 911-27 (b) and (c,) states that "The provisions of this section do not apply… where [a] minor is exercising First Amendment Rights protected by the United States Constitution." The right to which they make reference is "…the right of the people peaceably to assemble…" found in the First Amendment. While this seems to be a good addition in that it allows minors the freedom to exercise some of their rights, it actually nullifies all the reasons for the existence of a curfew. For, if the kids were not assembling peaceably, then they would be committing another crime, like disorderly conduct or a sound violation, and would be arrested anyway. Thus, curfew laws can have no effect if the supposed violator's rights are respected.

For a law that does nothing when it is enforced constitutionally, the curfew law is pretty expensive. The City of Cincinnati spent $ 168,000 in 1999 to staff holding facilities to detain the violators until they are picked up. That amounted to about $ 800 for each individual seized in that year (Osborne A12:1). For that amount of money, police officers could be hired, whose random patrols could lower crime much more effectively than any curfew law. Plus, these patrols would not be controversial in their constitutionality and would go straight to the criminals at the source of the crime, rather than targeting the whole age group of the supposed culprits.

It is difficult for anyone to write legislation pleasing to everyone. Yet, when a law is enacted because "We just don't think these kids need to be out on the street late at night," as Francis Healy, Mayor of Deer Park, put it, something must be done (Wetzel B3). These curfew laws restrict minors from being outside of their home at certain hours, unless accompanied by an adult or going to or from employment or a school function. Such ordinances interfere with the rights of kids and their parents, and are a tax burden upon all of society. Curfew laws interfere with the parents' Ninth Amendment rights to raise their children as they see fit. This is very harmful, as the Supreme Court itself ruled that parents are the ultimate authority as far as the upbringing of their children is concerned. These laws also restrict the kids' Fourth Amendment rights, as they are seized because they are young, which is not a good reason. Curfews in fact have no effect if the First Amendment rights of the transgressor are upheld. For a law that constitutionally has little or no effect, the curfew laws are very expensive. Hopefully, my efforts towards the elimination of what I deem as an improper law will have a better effect than Thoreau's stand, and will amount to something.

Sources