SR-8-C (56)
CA:f:atty\muni\strpts\mjm\curfew
city council Meeting 11/15/94
NO~ sC
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Mayor and city council
FROM:
City Staff
SUBJECT: Ordinance Indefinitely Extending The Youth Curfew By
Amending Ordinance Number 1696 (CCS) To Delete The
Sunset Provision
INTRODUCTION
The City's juvenile curfew w~ll expire on December 31, 1994. In a
staff report dated October 25, 1994, the Chief of Police
recommended that Ordinance Number 1696 (CCS) be amended so that the
juvenile curfew would be extended indefinitely. At its meeting of
October 25, 1994, the Council directed the city Attorney to
evaluate present la,v on juven~le curfews and to prepare the
recommended ordinance if permitted by law.
The recommended
ordinance is attached.
BACKGROUND
In June of 1991, the City Attorney ~ssued Memorandum Opinion Number
91-16 which opined that the c~ty's former juvenile curfew law, set
forth in Municipal Code Sect~on 4224, was unconstitutional because
it was both overbroad and irnperrniss~bly vague. section 4224 made
it unlawful for juveniles to "1o1terll ln publ~c places after 10:00
p.m.
The City Attorney concluded that the prohibition against
1
NOY 1 5 199't
8e
loitering did not provide adequate standards for the police to
enforce and that the law did not fairly apprise the public of what
conduct was prohibited.
Thereafter, the Chief of Police requested that the city Council
consider adopting a new Juvenile curfew similar to that imposed by
the Los Angeles Municipal Code. This request was made in a staff
report which noted that groups of juveniles were congregating
nightly in certain public places in the city, that some of the
groups were confrontational, that some confrontations appeared to
be racially motivated, and that some of the juveniles were armed.
At its meeting of June 29, 1993 and in response to the Police
Chief's request, the City council directed that a new ordinance be
prepared for Council conslderation.
Accordingly, the city Attorney's office drafted Ordinance Number
1696 (CCS), containing present Municipal Code Section 4.08.370. In
the accompanying staff report, the Acting city Attorney noted that
the ordinance would probably be upheld against a claim of facial
unconstitutionality because it defined the term "loiter" and
because it provided the type of exceptions and exemptions which
courts had required in cases involving juvenile curfews. The City
council adopted the new curfew ordinance on July 13, 1993.
Since the adoption of Ordinance Number 1696 (CCS) I a significant
number of violent crimes, lncluding murders, have occurred in the
2
area of Los Angeles to the south of the city's border. Apparently
a large number of these crimes were committed by warring groups
which include a large number of juveniles. Moreover, the Police
Department advises us that I although the existing curfew has
yielded significant improvements, groups of juveniles continue to
converge on certain public places in the City at night and that
instances of violent behavior are not uncommon in these
circumstances. These facts, as well as those mentioned in the
Police Chief's staff report of October 25, 1994, form the basis of
the request to extend the curfew.
DISCUSSION
California law on juvenile curfe,'lS has not changed since the
adoption of Ordinance Number 1696 (CCS). In California, the most
recently reported curfew decislon was rendered by the Court of
Appeal for this district in September of this year. It involved
the general curfew which the City of Long Beach imposed in late
April of 1992 ln response to wldespread rloting, looting, arson and
disorder. People v. Juan C., 94 D.A.R. 13817 (10/4/94). Thus, the
curfew in that case was different than ours because its application
was not Ilmited to juveniles and because 1t was adopted to address
a unique emergency. However, the case 1S 1nstructive because it
reflects the current state of the law.
In the Long Beach case, the appellant, a juvenile who was arrested
pursuant to the curfew law, clai~ed that the curfew regulation was
3
overbroad and vague. The Court of Appeal noted that state law
permits a local government to enact a curfew regulation during an
emergency (Government Code section 8634), and that the existence of
an emergency was undisputed. The court then analyzed the language
of the curfew regulation and concluded that it was not overbroad
under the circumstances and given that it required a warning prior
to arrest. The court also concluded that the curfew was not
impermissibly vague because it applied to all persons and therefore
did not glve the pollce excessive discretion. See Kolender v.
Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358, 361 (1983).
In the course of its oplnlon, the appellate court discussed the
substantial public interest in curtailing civil disturbance and the
fact that the courts have generally upheld curfews imposed to quell
rioting. In this part of its opinion, the court noted that
"[o]ther types of curfews which are not a response to any
emergency, a juvenile curfew for example, are not always accorded
the same deference as military or rlot curfews. 11 In support of
that observation the court cited both an out-of-state case which
held that a blanket juvenile curfew was unconstitutional and a
California case which upheld a blanket juvenile curfew (In Re Nancy
~, 28 Cal.App.3d 747 (1972)).
The Long Beach case shows that the constitutional issues raised by
curfew laws have not changed in the recent past. Nor has
California law on juvenile curfews changed. Therefore, our opinion
4
is the same as the opinion given to the city council in July of
1993. Although some jurisdictions have struck down blanket
juvenile curfews as facially unconsitutional, California case law
continues to permi t blanket juvenile curfews if certain
requirements are met. Sectlon 4.08.370 meets those requirements.
Accordingly, we believe that Munlcipal Code Section 4.08.370 would
be upheld as against a facial constitutional challenge.
In his staff report of October 25, 1994, the Chief of Police
emphasized that the Police Department has applied the juvenile
curfew ordinance with restraint. We fully support this approach.
Indeed, we think it imperative. Restraint is essential because,
among other things, the very language which makes the ordinance
facially constitutional also limits its application. The ordinance
defines the terM "loiter" as meaning "1ingering about for the
purpose of committing a crime as the opportunity may present
itself." Thus, the simple fact that a minor lS in a public place
after 10:00 p.m. is not a sufficlent basis for arrest. Therefore,
if the ordinance is extended indefinitely, we recommend that the
practice of careful and restrained applicatlon be extended
indefinitely, as well, in order to lessen the possibility of an "as
applied" challenge to the ordinance's constitutionality.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Councll adopt the attached ordinance.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
5
CA:MJM:muni\atty\laws\jl\curfew2.ord
city Council Meeting 11-15-94
Santa Monica, California
(CCS)
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(city council Series)
AN ORDINANCE Or THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY Or SANTA MONICA AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 1696 (CCS) ESTABLISHING A JUVENILE CURFEW,
TO DELETE SECTION 7, THE SUNSET CLAUSE
WHEREAS, on August 3/ 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance
Number 1696 (CCS) adding Section 4.08.370 to the Municipal Code to
establish a juvenile curfew; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 of Ordinance Number 1696 (CCS)
the juvenile curfew will expire on December 31, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Clty Councll flnds that the public health,
safety, and general welfare require the indefinite extension of the
juvenile curfew; and
WHEREAS, said extension may be accomplished by eliminating the
sunset clause which is section 7 of the ordinance,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. section 7 of Ordinance Number 1696 (CCS) is hereby
deleted.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
or appendices thereto lnconsistent ~n th the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed or modlfied to that extent necessary
to affect the provlsions of this ordinance.
SECTION 3.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconsti tutional by a decision of any court or any competent
jurisdiction, such decision hall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of thls Ordinance.
The City Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordlnance, an each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared
invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance.
The City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption.
This Ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
?~LI~~~~~
MARSHA JONYS MOUTRIE
City Attorney