ITEM 9-B
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 following 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
cities with similar statutes have had them struck down as
"...unconstitutionally vague and overbroad." 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
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
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, Inglewood, 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 similar 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
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
community 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
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., 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.
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