STATE SHOULD NOT PASS A NEW CURFEW LAW (2-2004)

For the second time, the courts have struck down Indiana’s 
curfew law. Now, the General Assembly is trying for the 
third time to get it right.

But getting it right might mean simply leaving it alone. 
Parents should ultimately be the ones responsible for 
setting curfew hours for their teen-agers.

I understand the motivation of the legislators. They want 
to protect minors. And they want to protect property from 
possible vandalism by minors. 

But it is not clear that making them stay home passed 11 
o’clock will result in any increased protection. What is 
more likely is that there will be increased inconvenience 
and burden for many parents and teen-agers. 
 
If the state lawmakers insist on passing some kind of 
curfew law, they should make it clear that the parents have 
the ultimate authority over how late their children stay 
out at night, and for what reasons.  
 
There are many reasons why teens might legitimately be out 
late at night. Not all minors who stay out passed 11 at 
night are causing trouble, so it is not fair to punish, or 
even harass, those who are doing no harm. 
 
For the most part, kids need to be at home and in bed by 
11:00 PM. But it should be up to the parents to provide the 
curfew as necessary and convenient for each individual 
family. The state should not try to play the role of 
parent, unless it is clear that the parents have abdicated 
their responsibility. 
 
Obviously, if police find kids out on the streets in the 
middle of the night, they need to be checked. Any new law 
should provide police with the rights to check minors who 
are out passed a certain hour. Their parents can then be 
called to verify that the teens have permission to be out 
late. If they do not have permission, then they should be 
escorted home. 
 
The current law allows police to arrest teens who are out 
after the curfew, but then they are released if it is found 
that they had a legitimate reason for being out. And those 
legitimate reasons are listed in the law.

But the court said that the act of arresting a minor who 
may, in fact, have a justifiable reason for being out is 
unconstitutional and an undue burden. 
 
A new law must not only allow for legitimate reasons, but 
it should prohibit arrests until police have determined 
that a bona fide violation has occurred. In addition, the 
law should allow parents to decide what reasons are valid, 
rather than trying to itemize them in the law itself. 
 
If teens are out causing trouble, they should be arrested, 
regardless of what time of day or night it is. But if they 
are simply out, doing whatever legal activity that has been 
approved by their parents, then they need to be left alone. 

The Indiana Civil Liberties Union has already said that the 
proposed new law, while addressing the specific concerns of 
the court, may still be unconstitutional as a whole. The 
ICLU believes any new law will be challenged in court.

With all the more important legislation that could be 
debated, passing an ill-conceived curfew law seems a waste 
of time and effort, especially considering that it will 
probably wind up being declared void by the courts again 
anyway.