A Brief History of Juvenile Curfews

Curfews are not just a product of today's contemporary society. Just as ancient histories influenced juvenile justice practices in the United States, today's curfews also have historical origins. The word curfew comes from the French term, "courvrefeu," meaning "to cover fire." In the feudal era, a bell would ring to alert the villagers to put out their fires and go to bed for the night. William the Conqueror even used an 8:00 p.m. curfew in 1068. The United States has used curfews during wartimes and emergencies since before the Civil War, but juvenile curfews did not become widespread until the late nineteenth century (O'Neil, 2002). Juvenile crime was blamed on immigrant children and their parent's lack of control over their children. This led to the support and enactment of curfews for minors in almost 3000 cities in the United States by 1900. It was not until World War II that they became a popular way to battle juvenile crime (Lester, as cited in O'Neil, 2002). By 1995, 77% of cities with populations greater than 200,000 had some form of juvenile curfew, 60% of which were either enacted or enhanced after 1990.

The popularity of curfews was not limited to large cities: in 1995, 73% of cities of more than 100,000 had curfews and by 1997, 80% of communities with populations greater than 30,000 had curfews (Juvenile Curfews and the Major Confusion over Minor Rights, 2005). A teen curfew is justified in many cities or municipalities as a simple method to not only reduce opportunities for teens to commit crimes but also to protect them from becoming crime victims themselves. The popularity of a nighttime curfew continues today with cities and towns all across the United States with juvenile curfew ordinances.

Juvenile curfews have stirred quite a controversy in recent years, specifically in the area of constitutionality. Although advocates say that teen curfews are necessary in protecting youths from crime and others from youth crime, critics say that minors have a constitutional right to be on the streets at night. Many cite the famed juvenile case, In re Gault. In this case the court held that, "whatever may be their precise impact neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone" (387 US 1, 1967 as cited in "Juvenile Curfews and the Major Confusion over Minor Rights," 2005). However, as in many legal issues, there are conflicting court decisions in the application of the constitutional rights of minors. The court has also indicated that the rights of minors are not equivalent to those who have reached the age of majority. In Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), for example, it held that, "[t]he state's authority over children's activities is broader than over the like actions of adults" (Juvenile Curfews and the Major Confusion over Minor Rights, 2005, p. 23).

It is true that some curfew ordinances have been struck down due to vagueness of the statute or not allowing for certain activities during curfew hours, however most ordinances have been found to be constitutional over and over again. On such instance was the decision in the notable case Schleifer v. City of Charlottesville. The city of Charlottesville enacted a juvenile nocturnal curfew on March 1, 1997. The ordinance generally prohibited minors under seventeen, from remaining in any public place, during curfew hours. The curfew took effect at 12:01 am on weekdays and 1:00 am on weekends. The curfew lifted at 5:00 am each day. The statute also made exceptions to the ordinance such as being accompanied by a parent, for employment, for certain organized activities, emergencies, and for exercising 1^st Amendment rights, etc. The plaintiffs in the case were minors and parents.

The minors alleged that the ordinance deprived them from lawful activities such as, eating out, playing in a band, and going to concerts. The parents alleged that the curfew interfered with their parenting decisions. The curfew was placed under intermediate scrutiny rather than strict because although children are protected by the constitution, courts have found repeatedly that they do not possess the same rights as adults. The court found that the curfew was a mild regulation that covered a limited age group during only a few hours of the night. Neither parents nor minors rights were found to be constitutionally violated because the exceptions were fair and adequate to preserve their rights and allow for worthwhile activities during curfew hours. The confusion over minor's rights and the constitutionality of curfew laws will continue as courts attempt to balance the rights of minors with the compelling need of a government to protect its youth and protect its community from dangerous youths. (Davis, Scott, Wadlington, & Whitebread, 2004)