New curfew hours for minors in the Village of Oxford were proposed last week in an ordinance amendment drafted by Councilman Steve Allen.
‘The big thing here for me was to try to come up with something that didn’t turn kids into criminals, but placed the responsibility for kids and their actions with the kids and the parents together,? Allen said at the Oct. 26 council meeting.
Council set a public hearing and first reading of the proposed ‘Curfew for Minors? ordinance for its Tuesday, Nov. 23 meeting.
‘We have had some problems this past summer with young kids hanging out downtown without a whole lot of parental guidance,? said Allen explaining why he drafted this proposed ordinance amendment using language from other communities, such as Marysville, Port Huron and Royal Oak. ‘I kind of took the best of all of those ordinances . . . Almost every good curfew ordinance right now is based on the one in Royal Oak. Every community I talked to said they used Royal Oak as a model.?
The proposed ordinance amendment defines three different curfew times for three different minor age categories.
Minors under age 12 shall not be allowed to ‘loiter, idle or congregate in or on any public street, highway, alley or park between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. unless the minor is accompanied by a parent or guardian, or some adult delegated, in writing, signed by the parent or legal guardian, to accompany the child.?
The proposed curfew hours for minors under age 16 are between 10 p.m and 6 am. Minors under age 18 must be off the streets between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., according to the proposed amendment.
Under the existing ordinance, cufew hours for minors under age 12 are between 10 p.m. and 6 p.m. and for those under age 16 between midnight and 6 a.m.
In addition to curfew hours, Allen’s proposed amendment also prohibits ‘congregation? at any time, ‘No minor(s) under the age of eighteen (18) years shall loiter, idle or congregate in or on any public street, highway, alley or park in, groups larger than 4, except where said minor(s) are accompanied by a parent or guardian or some adult delegated, in writing, signed by a parent or guardian, to accompany the minor.?
A ‘parental responsibility? section of the proposed amendment spells out the punishment for adults and minors who violate the ordinance.
A ‘parent, guardian, or other person having the care or custody of? a minor, ‘who permits, suffers, allows or encourages? a minor to violate the proposed ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and faces a fine of ?$500 per occurrence.? The offending minor faces ‘up to 200 hours of community service . . . at the discretion of the Court.?
‘I think the time has come to look at something like this,? Allen said. ‘Twenty or 30 years ago we wouldn’t be having this discussion because parents didn’t expect police officers to raise their kids. Nor did they open the front door, put one foot on their (kids?) rear-ends, give them a shove, lock it behind them and say go make your own fun.?
Village President Renee Donovan asked how this ordinance would affect minors walking home from a movie for example. She wondered if kids who ‘stop for three minutes? would be ‘accused of loitering or congregating.?
‘I’m not saying we don’t need an ordinance, I’m saying we just need to make sure we cover (everything).?
Councilman Dave Bailey asked if two minors out at night conducting astronomy-related studies would be considered in violation of the ordinance.
‘We don’t want to turn all kids under the age of 12 into criminals if they happen to be walking downtown at two minutes after 9 (p.m.) on a Friday night. That’s not the intent,? Allen said. ‘The intent is to put enough tools in these guys? (police officers) professional arsenal ? and I used the word professional very carefully because they know when something’s awry (and) something’s normal.?
Allen said the ordinance is designed to target those minors who ‘hang out? downtown, giving people ‘a hard time? and being ‘terribly disrespectful to police officers.?
The councilman said the proposed ordinance text is ‘vague? so as to allow the village police room for interpretation and to exercise their professional discretion.
‘We could write a 10-page document that covered every possible thing and I guarantee you the first (incident) would be outside the scope of what we wrote. Guaranteed,? the councilman said.
Police Chief Mike Neymanowski called the proposed ordinance a ‘useful tool when we do see problems with youngsters out here late at night.?
Neymanowski said the proposed language gives officers ‘a lot of discretion? with regard to enforcement.
The chief agreed with Allen that there’s a lack of respect? on the part of some kids. He said when officers approach them, some say, ‘I have a right to be here. It’s a public place.?
Neymanowski said the attitudes of some parents aren’t any better. Some parents tell police, ‘My son or daughter has a right to be downtown. I pay taxes. They can walk around, hang around with their friends.?
Councilman Bailey noted the curfew could possibly raise questions of constitutionality. He said the U.S. Constitution allows citizens to ‘peaceably assemble? and ‘doesn’t say anything about an age limit.?
‘I sound like a libertarian here, but I’ve got a libertarian streak,? Bailey said.
‘I got a law-and-order streak myself,? Allen retorted.
Although he called the proposed ordinance amendment is a ‘good idea,? Councilman Matt Weber played ‘devil’s advocate? and tossed out some possible criticisms.
‘For every rule you make, someone’s going to challenge it. And all we need is for more litigation, more attorney fees. I think it just might breed some of that,? Weber said. ‘Twenty, 30 years ago you didn’t have groups like the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), who will go out and fight for a guy’s right to burn the flag, but won’t let you say the Pledge (of Allegiance) in school.?
‘Yeah, you might be challenged on it, you bet,? Allen said. ‘But I’ll bet you it won’t take the writing of very many $500 tickets (and) you’ll see the congregating really dissipate downtown.?
Weber questioned how police would identify somebody under the age of 12 because they don’t carry a driver’s license like someone 16 or older. He suggested that rather than having three differnt age categories with three different curfew times maybe there should be one curfew time for anyone under age 18. The councilman said that would make ‘it a lot easier for the chief and his staff to enforce.?
Neymanowski said he likes the idea of different age brackets and times. ‘Is it proper for a 12-year-old to be out at 11 p.m.? I don’t think so.?
Included its approved motion to set the public hearing and first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment for Tuesday, Nov. 23, council also directed draft copies to be forwarded to the village police for review and comments by the chief and officers.
Village attorney Bob Bunting has already reviewed the proposed text and made some changes, according to Allen.
Editor’s Note: Regarding Councilman Weber’s comment, the American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920.