L.C. 7.10: Youth Curfew Abolition Act

[S019]

Youth Curfew Abolition Act

Be it enacted:

Section 1: Definition

1. "Youth curfew law" shall be defined as a law or ordinance established by a regional, state, or local government which prohibits or restricts persons of a certain age (usually under age 18) from being outside in public during a certain time of day (usually at night or during school hours), assuming that a state of emergency is not in place.

Section 2: Cutting Down on Curfews

1. All existing youth curfew laws are hereby repealed in Lincoln, effective immediately.
2. Police may not detain a person simply for being outside during a certain time assuming there is no reasonable suspicion said person has committed a crime.

Sponsor: cookiedamage

Debate on this has begun and shall last for no less than 72 hours

[S019]

So, I think a blanket ban is ill-advised, however I do think decriminalizing them should be a good idea

So, here's an amendment idea:

PartialYouth Curfew Abolition and Decriminalization Act

Be it enacted:

Section 1: Definition

1. "Youth curfew law" shall be defined as a law or ordinance established by a regional, state, or local government which prohibits or restricts persons of a certain age (usually under age 18) from being outside in public during a certain time of day (usually at night or during school hours), assuming that a state of emergency is not in place.

Section 2: Cutting Down on Curfews

1. All existing youth curfew laws are hereby repealed in Lincoln shall no longer apply to any youth above 14 years of age, effective immediately. three months after the passage of this bill
2. Police may not detain a person simply for being outside during a certain time assuming there is no reasonable suspicion said person has committed a crime.
3. In the event, that a youth is under 14 years of age, they shall not be detained, arrested, charged, cited, etc. by police for violating a curfew law. Instead, the parents of the youth should be contacted by a uniformed officer.

So, this amendment waters down this bill and makes it a bit more realistic. Young kids do need curfew laws for the sake of their own safety, also this makes clear that the only role of police in these laws should be protect and not punish young kids, also repealing curfews for older kids seems fine to me. Anyways, 24 hours for a Councilor to object to the amendment or for the sponsor to provide feedback

Sponsor feedback: Hostile

[Sestak]

This amendment rather guts the entire point of the bill - curfews even at 14 and under are dumb. Also, parents can be abusive - contacting them is not always the best idea.

[Gracile]

I agree with Sestak. The amendment changes too much of the intent of cookiedamage's original bill, and are ill-advised.

[CookieDamage]

I am carefully considering whether I support this amendment. I may consider supporting it if the age is lowered to 10. However, while I do not support Section II part 3. Parents can indeed be abusive and as such their abuse may be while a minor is out of the house. Contacting the parents should not be apart of the language.

In regards to procedure, I too object to the amendments.

[S019]

So, a vote on the amendment is now open and will remain open for 24 hours, please vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN


AYE

[Gracile]

Nay

[CookieDamage]

Nay

[Joe Biden 2024]

Nay

[S019]

This amendment has failed by a vote of 1-3-0-1


AYE: S019
NAY: gracile, cookiedamage, Gorguf
ABSTAIN:
NOT VOTING: 20RP12

[S019]

So, I will introduce a modified amendment to meet Councilor cookiedamage's concerns:

Partial Youth Curfew Abolition and Decriminalization Act

Be it enacted:

Section 1: Definition

1. "Youth curfew law" shall be defined as a law or ordinance established by a regional, state, or local government which prohibits or restricts persons of a certain age (usually under age 18) from being outside in public during a certain time of day (usually at night or during school hours), assuming that a state of emergency is not in place.

Section 2: Cutting Down on Curfews

1. All existing youth curfew laws are hereby repealed in Lincoln shall no longer apply to any youth above 10 years of age, effective immediately.
2. Police may not detain a person simply for being outside during a certain time assuming there is no reasonable suspicion said person has committed a crime.
3. In the event, that a youth is under 10 years of age, they shall not be detained, arrested, charged, cited, etc. by police for violating a curfew law.

Section 3: Implementation
 
1. This law shall go into effect 7 months after being signed by the Governor.

Sponsor feedback: Friendly

Hopefully, this amendment is a good middle ground, though it still doesn't address my concerns about this bill, but it's much better than the original bill, so I may be willing to vote for it, if this amendment is incorporated, I will not support the original text of the bill

[CookieDamage]

I support this amendment.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Hey ho spiritual nay vote on the amendment from me

At first, I was thinking I would oppose this bill because I do think it’s necessary to have curfews for youths so they’re not roaming the streets at all hours of the night, but then I considered that not all kids have a good living situation...or have a living situation at all. So maybe this isn’t a bad idea. I’m leaning towards supporting this.

[Dr. MB]

What’s the point of the 7 months? Also I can’t say I support the age limit either. Why packs of 9 year olds are gonna be out late at night I can’t say for sure but there’s usually gonna be a reason for it.

I obviously don’t support police detainment but how exactly does the law get enforced then if it’s passed as written?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

It does raise an interesting point that I hadn't considered--how the police will respond to anyone out after a certain time of night. Just because they can't be detained for being out late at night doesn't mean that an excuse won't be manufactured.

[S019]

What’s the point of the 7 months? Also I can’t say I support the age limit either. Why packs of 9 year olds are gonna be out late at night I can’t say for sure but there’s usually gonna be a reason for it.

I obviously don’t support police detainment but how exactly does the law get enforced then if it’s passed as written?

Well the simplest way for that would be maybe for them to just stay patrolling the area, looking out for kidnappers, because let's face it, 8-9 year olds walking alone outside is a perfect recipe for kidnappers to easily kidnap them and take them who knows where. That is my main issue with this bill, curfews do actually serve a point to protect younger kids. I'm starting to think, it might just be better to vote this down, given the issues that have arisen, and how this seems to have been an oversight when writing the bill.

It does raise an interesting point that I hadn't considered--how the police will respond to anyone out after a certain time of night. Just because they can't be detained for being out late at night doesn't mean that an excuse won't be manufactured.

Again maybe patrolling the block or the general area looking out for kidnappers is the best idea. Also kids under 10 really should not be out of the house at night. Those are elementary-school aged kids, they are absolutely not mature enough to be outside late at night, and allowing them to be outside that late at night creates issues. Of course, in an ideal world, these kids would just stay home, and honestly that's probably the best course for young kids. I sure know that I would not want to be alone at night in fourth or fifth grade.


So, let's try this

Partial Youth Curfew Abolition and Decriminalization Act

Be it enacted:

Section 1: Definition

1. "Youth curfew law" shall be defined as a law or ordinance established by a regional, state, or local government which prohibits or restricts persons of a certain age (usually under age 18) from being outside in public during a certain time of day (usually at night or during school hours), assuming that a state of emergency is not in place.

Section 2: Cutting Down on Curfews

1. All existing youth curfew laws in Lincoln shall no longer apply to any youth above 10 years of age
2. Police may not detain a person simply for being outside during a certain time assuming there is no reasonable suspicion said person has committed a crime.
3. In the event, that a youth is under 10 years of age, they shall not be detained, arrested, charged, cited, etc. by police for violating a curfew law.

Section 3: Enforcement

1. To enforce this law, if youth under 10 years old are alone or in groups at night and encountered by police. A police officer must first make the recommendation that they go home and inform them of the dangers of being alone at night. No part of this clause shall be interpreted to mean that youth must go home. If the youth do not leave, the police shall monitor the general area of where the youth are for their own safety. The sole job of the police here shall be to look out for kidnappers and other threats to the youth. Any police officer who attempts to use this clause to punish or otherwise discipline children shall be placed on unpaid leave, subject to administrative review

Section 3 4.: Implementation
 
1. This law shall go into effect 7 months after being signed by the Governor.

Sponsor feedback: Hostile

Hopefully this addresses concerns, though I'm beginning to think that this bill may not be the best idea.

24 hours to object and 24 hours for the sponsor to provide feedback

[CookieDamage]

I agree that 7 months is a strange period for implementation, it should be shorter. Consider this a hostile feedback.

[S019]

So, following the sponsor's feedback that the latest amendment is hostile, a 24 hour vote is open on the amendment, please vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN


AYE

[Dr. MB]

So, following the sponsor's feedback that the latest amendment is hostile, a 24 hour vote is open on the amendment, please vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN


AYE

What’s the point of the 7 months?

[S019]

What’s the point of the 7 months?

It's a reasonably sized implementation period to allow municipalities, etc. to prepare for the implementation of the law.

[Dr. MB]

What’s the point of the 7 months?

It's a reasonably sized implementation period to allow municipalities, etc. to prepare for the implementation of the law.

What "preparation" is needed? All that happens is to tell cops not to harass teenagers for being outside at night. Literally nothing else.

[S019]

What’s the point of the 7 months?

It's a reasonably sized implementation period to allow municipalities, etc. to prepare for the implementation of the law.

What "preparation" is needed? All that happens is to tell cops not to harass teenagers for being outside at night. Literally nothing else.

Well every single police department needs to implement these new policies and perhaps change existing policies to comply with the new ones, it makes sense to give them time to implement these changes.

[Dr. MB]

What’s the point of the 7 months?

It's a reasonably sized implementation period to allow municipalities, etc. to prepare for the implementation of the law.

What "preparation" is needed? All that happens is to tell cops not to harass teenagers for being outside at night. Literally nothing else.

Well every single police department needs to implement these new policies and perhaps change existing policies to comply with the new ones, it makes sense to give them time to implement these changes.

That takes like, an hour long meeting at most. Here's what happens:

POLICE CHIEF: Officers, let's discuss something.
COP: What?
POLICE CHIEF: Curfews. No more of them.
COP: So you're saying we can't stop kids on the street for no reason besides being outside?
POLICE CHIEF: Nope.
COP: Damnit.

And that's about the extent of "policy changes". 7 months means hundreds or thousands more kids detained on the street for no reason.

[Sestak]

yea this is not a change that needs change in equipment, or a massive change in procedure, or training, or anything of the sort. If they need to reassign cops from patrol against curfew violations they can still figure out how to do that after you abolish the curfews.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Nay on the amendment

As much as I want to trust that the police won’t harass young kids who are out late at night, they do it to legal adults who have the right to be out at any time they choose under the pretense of “looking” or “acting” suspiciously. I think we can pass this in some form, but it needs to be coupled with serious criminal justice reform so that this doesn’t ultimately have no impact.