A national advocacy is voicing its opinion of a proposed curfew ordinance that would, the organization says, violate the constitutional rights of home-schooled children in Clark County.
Included in the agenda packet for Monday’s Quorum Court meeting is a letter from the Home School Legal Defense Association urging the county’s governing body not to pass a curfew that would make it illegal for minors to be out-of-doors during regular school hours.
For two months, justices of the peace have reviewed and discussed the ordinance, which Justice Jonathan Huber proposed in the March meeting. An attorney, Huber said he has spent time with clients in Saline County juvenile court, and there are several cases that deal with minor truancy. Huber said the ordinance would “preserve public peace and safety."
The ordinance, if passed, would make it illegal for people younger than 18 to be at a public place or on a public road during pre-dawn hours and during daytime hours when public school is in session. Between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., juveniles would not be allowed outside their homes or classrooms.
Some justices have voiced opposition to the ordinance, while others have gone undecided. Justice Vanilla Hannah so far has been the only Quorum Court member other than Huber who has voiced support for the ordinance. Hannah, a teacher at Goza Middle School, did not return phone calls for comment by presstime Wednesday.
The HSLDA, which has a statewide membership of 500 families, wrote in its letter that daytime curfews violate minors’ Fourth and 14th Amendment rights.
In the letter, the organization offered six arguments.
First, it would violate the Fourteenth Amendment because it would prohibit movement on public areas without being subjected to prior governmental restraint. The letter cites Supreme Court cases that have upheld that all U.S. citizens, including minors, can move freely about the streets. “Minors are citizens who possess the same fundamental constitutional rights that adults possess,” wrote Darren A. Jones, an HSLDA staff attorney.
Second, daytime curfews violate minors’ Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The letter argues that curfew ordinances would allow police officers to stop and question minors walking the streets without probable cause. Jones wrote that such an ordinance could lead to harassment cases against the county.
Third, the ordinance would “punish innocent behavior” of privately educated students. Jones cited Salt Lake Tribune news articles from Utah that told stories of privately educated juveniles who were stopped and detained at public places as they tried to enjoy a day away from their schooling. Jones wrote that a curfew ordinance would “reverse” the presumption that suspects are always innocent until proven guilty.
For the fourth argument, the organization said the ordinance would interfere with parents’ right to “direct the upbringing and education” of their children. “Private schools and home schools do not have to march to the beat of the public school schedule,” Jones wrote. “But the demonstrated consequence of marching to a different beat is that privately educated are subject to repeated police stops and interrogation. Children will be forced to repeatedly explain themselves to the police just because their parents have exercised their constitutional liberty to choose private education.”
The fifth argument is that the ordinance would not deter a “serious juvenile law-breaker” from violating the ordinance. The letter also contends that there would be an additional burden to tax dollars to enforce the law. Jones wrote that Clark County lacks the data to support how such an ordinance would lessen juvenile crime.
Finally, a daytime curfew would “dangerously train” juveniles to “accept constraints that are inconsistent with the freedom they should be educated to enjoy and use responsibly in their adult years.” Enacting the ordinance would send a message to responsible minors that the county makes “no distinction between them and irresponsible adults who abuse freedom,” the letter continues.
Justice Albert Neal, who has said he was neutral on the issue, said this morning that the letter “really didn’t change my opinion that much. But I’m thinking about voting against it because (the ordinance is) something we don’t need. We shouldn’t need to stir up a division about something that I think we don’t need.”
Neal recounted a story when he was a college-age youth and visited Oakland, Calif. He arrived at the bus station early in the morning and was harassed by a police officer, who forced him to leave the bus station and walk to his destination. That incident led to Neal’s fear of police officers, he said.
He has since gotten over his fear of police harassment, but realizes it could still be an issue.
“I don’t want kids to be harassed and become fearful of police. I want them to think police officers are their friends.”
Huber, who had not received his agenda packet at presstime Wednesday, said the letter would not change his mind about the curfew. “My whole purpose in proposing the ordinance is to try to find something that will benefit our community and will benefit the juveniles in the community,” he said. “It is not designed to discriminate or target any one group. It’s to promote the values we believe in.”
He said, if there are changes that should be made before the ordinance is considered for adoption, “I’m open to any comments or suggestions someone would like to make. That’s why we’ve taken two months to consider the ordinance, because we wanted to give everyone the opportunity to review it.
“If the daytime curfew is not appropriate, then we need to not enact that part of it. I have a very open mind about what needs to be done.” He said he has received no phone calls or negative comment regarding the curfew ordinance.
Huber said he disagrees with HSLDA about the infringements to juveniles’ constitutional rights.
“There are exceptions in law for a juvenile. It’s a different class when it comes to the well-being of a community in my opinion.”
He noted that other counties are in the process of adopting the ordinance. He said his proposed ordinance is an exact replica of the one being discussed in Saline County, and their attorney, as well as Clark County Attorney Todd Turner, has not found any legal or constitutional issues. Also, the Attorney General’s office “has expressed opinions that it’s OK,” Huber said. “The bottom line is to adopt an ordinance that will benefit the county and help protect the juveniles and their best interest. It is an attempt to provide a safe environment for children and give law enforcement a tool to do their job.”
|
|
|
A national advocacy is voicing its opinion of a proposed curfew ordinance that would, the organization says, violate the constitutional rights of home-schooled children in Clark County.
Included in the agenda packet for Monday’s Quorum Court meeting is a letter from the Home School Legal Defense Association urging the county’s governing body not to pass a curfew that would make it illegal for minors to be out-of-doors during regular school hours.
For two months, justices of the peace have reviewed and discussed the ordinance, which Justice Jonathan Huber proposed in the March meeting. An attorney, Huber said he has spent time with clients in Saline County juvenile court, and there are several cases that deal with minor truancy. Huber said the ordinance would “preserve public peace and safety."
The ordinance, if passed, would make it illegal for people younger than 18 to be at a public place or on a public road during pre-dawn hours and during daytime hours when public school is in session. Between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., juveniles would not be allowed outside their homes or classrooms.
Some justices have voiced opposition to the ordinance, while others have gone undecided. Justice Vanilla Hannah so far has been the only Quorum Court member other than Huber who has voiced support for the ordinance. Hannah, a teacher at Goza Middle School, did not return phone calls for comment by presstime Wednesday.
The HSLDA, which has a statewide membership of 500 families, wrote in its letter that daytime curfews violate minors’ Fourth and 14th Amendment rights.
In the letter, the organization offered six arguments.
First, it would violate the Fourteenth Amendment because it would prohibit movement on public areas without being subjected to prior governmental restraint. The letter cites Supreme Court cases that have upheld that all U.S. citizens, including minors, can move freely about the streets. “Minors are citizens who possess the same fundamental constitutional rights that adults possess,” wrote Darren A. Jones, an HSLDA staff attorney.
Second, daytime curfews violate minors’ Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The letter argues that curfew ordinances would allow police officers to stop and question minors walking the streets without probable cause. Jones wrote that such an ordinance could lead to harassment cases against the county.
Third, the ordinance would “punish innocent behavior” of privately educated students. Jones cited Salt Lake Tribune news articles from Utah that told stories of privately educated juveniles who were stopped and detained at public places as they tried to enjoy a day away from their schooling. Jones wrote that a curfew ordinance would “reverse” the presumption that suspects are always innocent until proven guilty.
For the fourth argument, the organization said the ordinance would interfere with parents’ right to “direct the upbringing and education” of their children. “Private schools and home schools do not have to march to the beat of the public school schedule,” Jones wrote. “But the demonstrated consequence of marching to a different beat is that privately educated are subject to repeated police stops and interrogation. Children will be forced to repeatedly explain themselves to the police just because their parents have exercised their constitutional liberty to choose private education.”
The fifth argument is that the ordinance would not deter a “serious juvenile law-breaker” from violating the ordinance. The letter also contends that there would be an additional burden to tax dollars to enforce the law. Jones wrote that Clark County lacks the data to support how such an ordinance would lessen juvenile crime.
Finally, a daytime curfew would “dangerously train” juveniles to “accept constraints that are inconsistent with the freedom they should be educated to enjoy and use responsibly in their adult years.” Enacting the ordinance would send a message to responsible minors that the county makes “no distinction between them and irresponsible adults who abuse freedom,” the letter continues.
Justice Albert Neal, who has said he was neutral on the issue, said this morning that the letter “really didn’t change my opinion that much. But I’m thinking about voting against it because (the ordinance is) something we don’t need. We shouldn’t need to stir up a division about something that I think we don’t need.”
Neal recounted a story when he was a college-age youth and visited Oakland, Calif. He arrived at the bus station early in the morning and was harassed by a police officer, who forced him to leave the bus station and walk to his destination. That incident led to Neal’s fear of police officers, he said.
He has since gotten over his fear of police harassment, but realizes it could still be an issue.
“I don’t want kids to be harassed and become fearful of police. I want them to think police officers are their friends.”
Huber, who had not received his agenda packet at presstime Wednesday, said the letter would not change his mind about the curfew. “My whole purpose in proposing the ordinance is to try to find something that will benefit our community and will benefit the juveniles in the community,” he said. “It is not designed to discriminate or target any one group. It’s to promote the values we believe in.”
He said, if there are changes that should be made before the ordinance is considered for adoption, “I’m open to any comments or suggestions someone would like to make. That’s why we’ve taken two months to consider the ordinance, because we wanted to give everyone the opportunity to review it.
“If the daytime curfew is not appropriate, then we need to not enact that part of it. I have a very open mind about what needs to be done.” He said he has received no phone calls or negative comment regarding the curfew ordinance.
Huber said he disagrees with HSLDA about the infringements to juveniles’ constitutional rights.
“There are exceptions in law for a juvenile. It’s a different class when it comes to the well-being of a community in my opinion.”
He noted that other counties are in the process of adopting the ordinance. He said his proposed ordinance is an exact replica of the one being discussed in Saline County, and their attorney, as well as Clark County Attorney Todd Turner, has not found any legal or constitutional issues. Also, the Attorney General’s office “has expressed opinions that it’s OK,” Huber said. “The bottom line is to adopt an ordinance that will benefit the county and help protect the juveniles and their best interest. It is an attempt to provide a safe environment for children and give law enforcement a tool to do their job.”
