Loading...
SR-9-B (51) - , , 9-8 PD:JTB:HA:dvm:curfew2 Santa Monica, californiJ1AR :? 1 199: city Council Meeting 03/24/92 STAFF REPORT TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Ordinance to Revise section 4224 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code Which Establishes a Curfew For Minors INTRODUCTION This staff report requests that the City Attorney's Office draft an ordinance to revise Section 4224 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code which sets forth curfew restrictions for minors. BACKGROUND The City has had a curfew ordinance (SMMC 4224) since 1948 which prohibits those under eighteen years of age from loitering between 10 p.m. and sunrise of the fallowing day. Under former Police Chief James F. Keane, the ordinance was used as an enforcement tool to send youth home who caused problems during nighttime hours. Chief Keane considered the ordinance to be an effective law enforcement tool and supported its usage. In early 1991, the curfew ordinance was brought to the attention of the city Attorney's Office when the Police Department discussed posting of signs outlining curfew hours at certain points in the city. In Opinion Number 91-16 dated June 13, 1991, the city Attorney's Office stated that Municipal Code Section 4224 is likely to be declared unconstitutional if challenged. The opinion stated that - 1 - 9-8 MAD,' ....., ~ Il 1,- ~ r II, : ~ -;-.J t cities with similar statutes have had them struck down as "...unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. It When it appeared that its constitutionality might be in question, the Police Department requested that the ordinance be revised so that it could continue to be used as an enforcement tool. This request was made even though there are no complaints on record about Santa Monica's enforcement of the existing curfew regulations. The decision to stop using the curfew ordinance as an enforcement tool has significantly impacted the Department's ability to address complaints generated by the presence of sizable numbers of juveniles who congregate late at night and cause problems in areas such as the Promenade, pier and parks. The number of juveniles who frequent those areas after 10 p.m. has increased since the police suspended enforcement of the curfew. Without the curfew, the youth know they can come to Santa Monica and have unlimited hours to "hang out." According to officers who patrol the Bayside District and the Pier, the problems and complaints from visitors and shop owners have increased proportionally to the increase in the number of young people who "hang out." Police supervisory personnel report that groups of 10 to 17 year olds from different areas congregate in the Bayside District nightly. Some of the groups are confrontational, seeking out groups from other areas or ethnicities to challenge. Some of the youth are armed. As the numbers escalate and the youth congregate in close proximity, the potential for violence including assaults and - 2 - shootings increases. Recently, during an arrest situation, an officer had to call for officer assistance when seriously challenged by a group of juveniles. Citizens have stated they are intimidated and sometimes harassed by groups of youths. At times, groups of juveniles obstruct walkways and make rude comments to passerbys. Police Department staff expect that the problem with juveniles congregating in city-operated areas will escalate during the summer. The officers polled anticipate that without the curfew ordinance available to use, additional enforcement efforts will be required. It is important to note that the increase in gang-related problems in the region are relevant to Santa Monica because of our various visitor attractions which serve thousands of people weekly. As will be discussed later in the report, being the only City in the area without a curfew ordinance puts our public safety enforcement efforts at a real as well as relative disadvantage. DISCUSSION In general, a curfew ordinance is a means to address specific complaints generated by the presence of sizable numbers of juveniles who congregate late at night and cause problems in areas such as parks, malls, beaches and piers. A simple procedure is followed when a juvenile is in violation of a curfew or loitering law. The juvenile is issued a citation, brought to the pOlice station and then released to a parent or legal guardian. The police officer who detains the youth schedules an appointment with the agency's juvenile staff for the youth and a - 3 - parent or guardian. In the event the juvenile is a habitual curfew violator, he or she is required to go to juvenile traffic court where the case is heard by a traffic hearing officer. As of January 1990, a hearing officer can adjUdicate the violation under Section 256 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. It was determined that other law enforcement agencies use municipal ordinances to enforce curfew restrictions. A recent survey was conducted involving eleven local cities and three in Northern california. Police departments in Beverly Hills, Culver city, Fresno, Huntington Beach, Ing1ewood, -Long Beach, Los Angeles, Newport Beach, pasadena, Redondo Beach, Sacramento, and Torrance were contacted. The Los Angeles and Sacramento Sheriff's Departments were also surveyed. All but four of the municipalities have curfew ordinances. The other four cities (Huntington Beach, Inglewood, Long Beach and Redondo Beach) have loitering rather than curfew laws, but they are very simil ar to curfew ordinances and are enforced for the same purpose. Each of the agencies enforces their ordinances. Only Long Beach uses its loitering law " on a regular basis to conduct curfew sweeps." The remaining agencies use their curfeW/loitering ordinances on an occasional basis and in response to a particular problem. A follow-up survey of the 14 police agencies determined that only one of the municipalities has had its curfew/loitering ordinance challenged. The City of Sacramento's curfew ordinance was contested in 1972. The constitutionality of the ordinance was - 4 - affirmed (In re Nancy C., 28 Cal. App. 3d 747, 105 Cal. Rptr. 113 (1972). In addition, the court found that: "The community has a special interest in the protection of children of immature years and in the reduction of juvenile nocturnal crime. Thus, curfew ordinances for minors are justified as necessary police regulations to control the presence of juveniles in public places at nighttime with the attendant risk of mischief, and they promote the safety and good order of the community by reducing the incidence of juvenile criminal activity." It should be noted that all of the curfew ordinances are modeled after the ordinance adopted by the City of Los Angeles. In fact, the majority of the ordinances are identical to the ordinance enacted in Los Angeles. Those that differ from the Los Angeles ordinance do so with only minor variations. According to the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office this ordinance has "never been declared unconstitutional." SUMMARY In order to have a curfew ordinance that meets the needs of the communi ty while being legally acceptable, the Police Department recommends that the City Attorney's Office be directed to draft a new curfew ordinance which mirrors the ordinance enacted by the city of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles ordinance prohibits the unsupervised presence of minors under the age of 18 years old in public places between the hours of 10 p.m. and sunrise the following day. The primary provisions in the Los Angeles - 5 - ordinance that need to be incorporated in the Santa Monica ordinance are exceptions to the ordinance. The exceptions in the Los Angeles ordinance are as follows: (a) When the minor is accompanied by his or her parent or parents, legal guardian or other adult person having the legal care or custody of the minor, or by his or her spouse eighteen years of age or older; (b) When the minor is upon an errand directed by his or her parent or parents or legal guardians or other adult persons having the legal care or custody of the minor, or by his or her spouse eighteen years of age or older; (c) When the minor is returning directly home from a public meeting, or a place of pUblic entertainment, such as a movie, play, sporting event, dance or school activity; or (d) When the presence of such minor in said place or places is connected with or required with respect to a business, trade, profession or occupation in which said minor is lawfully engaged. The Los Angeles ordinance contains the " . . . reasonable and comprehensive exceptions relied upon by the court to sustain the Sacramento (curfew) statute "[In re Nancy C. J 28 Cal. Appx. 3d 747, 105 Cal. Rptr 113 (1972)]. Police staff recommends one change to the ordinance adopted by the city of Los Angeles. Staff suggests a 10 p.m. curfew Sunday through Thursday and an 11 p.m. curfew on Friday and saturday. - 6 - This recommendation results from a discussion between the Chief of Police and a group of youth from Kids city. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION city staff recommends that the City Attorney's Office be directed to draft an ordinance which revises section 4224 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code as outlined above. Prepared By: James T. Butts, Chief of Police - 7 - 1 Summary of Street Performer's Committee Proposal for Changes To the Temporary Ordinance Governing Outdoor Performance At 3rd Street Promenade September 23th. 1991 A few weeks ago, when Santa Monica City CouncIl considered the matter of street performers at Thud Street Promenade. we performers told you we were ready to work cooperatively with Council, Bayside District Corp, merchants and residents to better manage our performances. Since then. a lot of good things have happened. This letter comes to you from a committee of performers formed in cooperation with all those parties. The committee now provides a mechamsm for both self-management by the performers. and input by the various interest groups lllvolved with the Promenade Should any party have concerns about particular aspects of our performances, the committee will work with all groups to resolve the difficulty. The committee has already addressed the pnmary concerns of noise, merchant revenue and performance crowding. Accordingly, we feel it is vital that the temporary Council ordinance drafted on this matter now be revised to bring it up to date with the new situation. The following is a summary of the committee's recommenda tion s: -A committee of street performers eXists to manage performances at Third Street Promenade. This committee will work to resolve all complaints involving performers. Communicate such complaints to the committee. - The ordinance pertaining to performers should be revised to treat all acts on the basis of decibel level regardless of how the sound is produced. There are two ways to reduce decibel level at a locations sensitive to sound: 1) Turn the volume down at the source, and 2) Move the source farther away from the sensitive location. The current prohibnion in the ordinance banning all amplifiers, should be removed. Sound levels of amplified instruments can be more easily controlled than can acoustic instruments, but both types can be 2 controlled, and the committee provldes a mechanism to control sound levels. The committee has derived formulas from fundamental pnnClples of physics which describe the distances and sound levels needed to achieve specifIC sound reductions at specific locations., and a committee member has purchased a decibel meter for this purpose. - The committee will work to control sound levels. If a speclfic act fails to comply with the committee's recommendations, the committee will communicate this to the local police, and they are free to resolve the matter as needed. -The commlttee proposes a "rolling break" and "hold and release" schedule affecting large acts across the Promenade. "Rolling breaks" will shut large acts down for specified break penods across an entire Promenade block, and each of the three blocks will take their turn to break over a time cycle, for example, sequential 30 minute breaks over a 90 minute time cycle. When crowds are "released" during such a break, they will have the opportunity to dlsperse into nearby shops - The committee wlll assign positions, and large acts will rotate daily to other locatlOns, never playmg two weekend days in a row in a gi ven spot. In order to achieve this goal, and the City Council and Bayside's goal of getting performers to all blocks mcluding the deserted north block, the committee recommends that addltional lights slmilar to the central performance area be installed in additional locations on all three blocks. This is key to encouragmg performers to more umformly spread out over the whole Promenade. - The sectIOn of the temporary ordinance banning performance between 2P .M. and 5P .M. on weekdays should be removed, since the committee's "rolling break" and noise control services will eliminate the problems those restrictions were designed to address Since business has been "dead" during these periods, if anything, adding performance dunng this period will bring people back to the Promenade during this time. - The committee will issue recognizable badges to all performers complying with its guidelines. Performers who choose not to follow committee guidelines pertaining to sound, locatiOn and schedule, will have to individually negotiate wnh merchants, police, etc., which is their choice. Also, the committee will not regulate any aspect of the artistic content of any performance. . 3 - The temporary ordinance should be revised so that holidays are treated like weekend days. The committee has been in communication with the Santa Monica Police Dept., and we have informally agreed to do this. City Council should formalize this in the ordinance. - The temporary ordinance prOVision prohibiting street performances during "special events" at the Promenade should be removed. The committee believes that at some events, some performing may be appropriate. For example. such performing lent a nice ambiance to the food festIval a few months ago. On the other hand, it would not be appropnate for street musicians to perform at a music event such as the recent Folk and Jazz festival. The committee proposes to work with Bayside District Corp. and City Council to determine when specific types of performing are appropriate at specific special events. on a case by case basis. - The committee is gratified by the spirit of cooperation from Bayside, the merchants, the performers and the public. and by presenting these proposals for discussion and review, we wish to continue this fine level of cooperation. Mickey O'Connor (213)397-0321 (Juggler) Mitch Rudman (213)824-1082 (Comedy) Russ Taylor (213)205-8405 (a.k.a. Balloon Mann) Kathryn Mora (213)839-3905 (Katrina, the Clown)