NCJ Number
167338
Date Published
1997
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This paper identifies the parameters for curfew laws that make them constitutional and argues that the restrictions imposed by curfew legislation are minor and are justified by the need to prevent juvenile crime.
Abstract
Proponents of curfews argue that they serve as a tool for both the police and parents. In high-crime communities, curfews are a means to protect nondeliquent youth from crime and to deny delinquent youth the opportunity to engage in crime. In low-crime communities, they provide the police with the means to disperse late-night crowds of juveniles, to stop and question youth during curfew hours, and, if necessary, to keep them off the streets. For parents, curfews provide support and legitimacy for restrictions on the late-night activities of their children. Because curfews implicate fundamental rights, however, courts generally have subjected curfews to strict scrutiny. A curfew can only be upheld if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a curfew adopted by the city of Dallas, which prohibits juveniles from remaining in public places between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am on weeknights and from 12 midnight until 6 am on weekends. The curfew was found to be reasonable because it used the least restrictive means of accomplishing its goals by exempting juveniles who were accompanied by a parent or guardian, engaging in core First Amendment activity, traveling to or from employment, engaged in interstate commerce, or responding to an emergency. The only activity that the Dallas law limits is aimless, senseless hanging out on street corners in the middle of the night.