West Virginia high court hears arguments over city's juvenile curfew

The Associated Press

06.08.00

Printer-friendly page

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — An attorney challenging Charleston's teen curfew tried to persuade the West Virginia Supreme Court yesterday that the ordinance is illegal, unfair and relegates juveniles to second-class citizenship.

Attorney Jason Huber also said the ordinance is not likely to deter crime and is a violation of parents' rights to raise children.

"Juvenile crime is so low that you can't even recognize a trend," Huber said. "If an individual is engaged in misconduct, you can arrest that person anyway."

Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard disagreed with Huber's notion that teen crime is almost nonexistent in Charleston.

"I wish you could have driven with me around the east end of Charleston recently," Maynard said.

"A lot of children don't have adequately functioning parents. This is not the world of Ozzie and Harriet," he said. "What about protecting the children who are not protected by their parents?"

The case stems from a May 1999 decision by a Kanawha County Circuit judge, who upheld the Charleston ordinance placing a curfew on people under 18. The ruling was challenged by three George Washington High School students, a parent and the American Civil Liberties Union, who contended the ordinance was unconstitutional.

Charleston officials refer to the curfew as the "Youth Protection Ordinance."

The lawsuit claimed the curfew violates minors' rights to the pursuit of happiness, due process, equal protection under the law and freedom of speech and assembly.

The curfew requires minors to be off the streets between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekdays and between midnight and 6 a.m. on weekends. Teens are allowed to stay out past curfew with their parents' permission or if they are attending school, cultural or religious outings.

Huber told justices the city ordinance relegates teen-agers to second-class citizenship.

"The West Virginia Supreme Court has the opportunity to tell young people they are full participants in our society, that they are part of the process," Huber said.

Charleston lawyer John Teare, arguing for the city, told justices that Charleston is within its rights to impose the ordinance and that curfews in other cities — such as Dallas and Washington, D.C. — have been found constitutional.

Nearly 75% of the nation's largest cities now have juvenile curfew laws, Teare said in a written brief.

Teare and Huber said some West Virginia municipalities other than Charleston may have curfew laws "on the books," but they were not sure whether they are being enforced.

Huber and the ACLU's state director, Hilary Chiz, say that if justices allow the ordinance to stand, they may file an appeal alleging the ordinance unfairly targets minorities.

Although race was not a central target of arguments or questions, Justice Larry Starcher asked Teare if city police officers are using the curfew to "sweep black kids off the streets after midnight?"

Teare stated that city officials have seen no evidence that officers are improperly enforcing the ordinance.

Justices asked Teare if teen-agers could circumvent the curfew by keeping in their possession a note from their parents.

"If a teen-ager has a note that says he's running an errand for his parents, can he get around the law that way?" Starcher asked.

Yes, Teare said.

Starcher predicted that even if the justices rule in favor of the ordinance, it would "be thrown on the dust heap."