Law states: Offenses; A minor commits an offense if he or she remains in any public place or on the premises of any establishment within the Municipality of Anchorage during curfew hours.
(the following is one of three subsections to the ordanance, the others were not posted)
1. Accompainied by his or her parent or guardian. 1
2. On an errand at the written direction of his or her parent or guardian, without any detour or stop (written direction must be signed, timed, and dated by the parent or guardian and must indicate the specific errand) 2
3. Involved in an emergency
4. Engaged in an employment activity or going to or returning from an employment activity, without detour or stop. 3
5. On the public right-of-way immediately abutting the minor's residence or immediately abutting the residence of a next-door neighbor, if the neighbor did not complain to the police department about the minor's presence. 4
6. Attending or going to or returning home from, without any detour or stop, an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by the Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage School District, a Civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor. 5
7. 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. 6
8. Married or had disabilities of minority removed in accordance with AS 9.55.590 (emancipated)
2: The apparent problem with this clause is that the officer presented with a signed and dated note is very likely not going to have any clue as to whether the signature is genuine, and will have no way of finding out short of calling the parent/guardian to confirm, which virtually negates the purpose of the note. Back Up
3: Possible difficulty - how is the officer to know that 1) the minor's shift just ended or whether it's an excuse, and 2) the business actually 'just closed?' The chances of any given officer knowing the operating hours of any given business (any smaller business, that is, that may not have standard hours) are kind of slim - not nonexistant, however - major business have fairly well-known hours, and if the officer really wants, they can probably call the business (if it's open 24 hours a day, remember we're talking about after 11pm/1am here) and verify the minor's work schedule. Back Up
4: I found this one interesting. At first I thought it just meant that minors could be out in the street in front of their house after curfew as long as they're not bothering their neighbors, which made sense. But as I looked at the way it's worded, it actually can be a fairly open clause, especially the opening phrase "On the public right-of-way immediately abutting the minor's residence...." So, if a minor happens to live in a house/apartment complex or whatever that immediately faces, say, Tudor Road, they can be anywhere on Tudor Road after curfew, as long as there are no complaints, right? Admittedly, violating the intent if not the letter of the law, but it's the letter of the law that stands up in courts. Back Up
5: Minor quibble here. If the adults/parents/guardians in the lives of the teens that this law is supposedly acutally aimed at were taking responsiblity for those in their supervision, we wouldn't need the curfew law. Back Up
6: This could, quite possibly, become a major factor, as in some sense, it is a major hole in the law. As long as the minors in question remember this, and tell the police that "I/we are excercising our First Amendment rights to assemble in this public place," they are fine. While this approach wouldn't work on Municipality Property (such as any of the parks in town) that has posted open and closed hours, if the minors in question are out in public and are not being disorderly or breaking some other law that prevents them from being where they are, the curfew law could very well not be a factor, as long as they remember this clause, and hold out for their First Amendment rights.
This is getting more interesting the more I think about it. In previous years, it has been made clear during battles over student locker searches in schools and censorship of school newspapers that the Constitution and Amendments do not apply to minors. However, by putting this clause in the curfew law, the assembly is bucking that decision and saying that the First Amendment, and therefore the rest of the Constitution and Amendments, do apply to minors. Now, I can see two things happening. If this curfew law is taken to court, this could (and should) be a major source of contention. Either they are going to say that due to previous rulings (dealing with the school locker searches/newspaper censorship, and I wish I had a link for this), this clause needs to be stricken from the curfew law (not my favorite option), or if it is upheld, schools are going to find themselves trying to defend their locker searches and censorship actions which can easily be seen as unconstitutional (illegal search and seizure). Back Up
Add to this the rigamarole and hassle involved in doing much in the way of upholding the curfew law (beyond the first few weeks, when we'll probably see a lot of grandstanding by APD and the assembly about the new law going in effect), the time it takes to locate the residence of the minor and deliver them to it, the time to fine the minor/parents/business owner, any paperwork involved.... In my opinion, the time they spend diddling around all this with some kids who are out enjoying themselves safely and not bothering anyone, will seriously detract from the time they could spend apprehending and taking care of those kids (and adults) who are out enjoying themselves by bothering others.
This page will be updated as I continue my research into the topic - this is one I feel like playing with for a while. (grin)
I am collecting and saving any and all responses I get to this. If you would like, you can check out what other people have to say about this whole thing.
Questions? Comments? Words of wisdom? Please e-mail me with any comments or related information (at this case I'm looking for local ACLU info, among other things) at woody@alaska.net.
Back to Babble...