http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_us/arkansas_town_curfew


"Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I'm fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here," Mayor James Valley said. "The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution."


wait wait what did he just say??

Wow...this is what happens though when the social contract fails. The Constitution and similar ideals only work if the people under them support them...

So, in light of all the other scary police threads we've had lately, how bad do you suppose this can go?

It wasn't a well though out statement. Insofar as the Constitution is concerned, I'm not sure if anything in there covers the right to be out after a certain hour of night.

Furthermore there is an Amendment that covers this:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


So if locals want to enact a curfew, the the police are allowed to do so.

"As far as I'm concerned, at 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law," Councilman Eugene "Red" Johnson said. "Anyone out at 3 o'clock shouldn't be out on the street, unless you're going to the hospital."This however is a frightening statement. Not usually my political line, but I dislike this degree of the government telling me when I can and cannot be awake and moving around.

what if I have insomonia or me and taleran babe and unexplainable urge for. White castle

"As far as I'm concerned, at 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law," Councilman Eugene "Red" Johnson said. "Anyone out at 3 o'clock shouldn't be out on the street, unless you're going to the hospital."

This is scary, this person needs to be removed from any position of authority.

So if locals want to enact a curfew, the the police are allowed to do so.

That's true, and it irks me a little to see people all over the Internet calling this "martial law", because it isn't. Curfews aren't uncommon at all.

It does seem like this sort of thing is on the rise lately though. Don't care much for the trend.

It would be martial law if the Army were the ones enforcing the curfew, rather than the police.

I sometimes wonder if someone shouldn't open up a theme park based on Moscow during the Cold War. One of the featured attractions would be as you are walking along side the road, an unmarked black sedan would pull up, and several men dressed in dark suits would get out, and usher 1 of your family into the car. For the next 3 hours or so, they'd be "interrogated" about thier subversive activities: complete with spotlight, cigarette smoke, and veiled threats against the family if they don't "cooperate". Once the confession is signed, they are allowed to return to see the family before being shipped off to "Siberialand".

Then people might have an idea as to what martial law is really like.

I would love that theme park... sounds like fun, if executed correctly with good actors as staff.

I sometimes wonder if someone shouldn't open up a theme park based on Moscow during the Cold War. One of the featured attractions would be as you are walking along side the road, an unmarked black sedan would pull up, and several men dressed in dark suits would get out, and usher 1 of your family into the car. For the next 3 hours or so, they'd be "interrogated" about thier subversive activities: complete with spotlight, cigarette smoke, and veiled threats against the family if they don't "cooperate". Once the confession is signed, they are allowed to return to see the family before being shipped off to "Siberialand".

Then people might have an idea as to what martial law is really like.

Um, well, we already have almost exactly that going on here.

This is scary, this person needs to be removed from any position of authority.

Read the article again. Thats their personal feelings, and there's been plenty of stand-up and sit coms on how nothing good ever happens after 2 am. Their curfue doesn't disallow anyone from going out after 3 AM, it just asks where they are going - and if they act suspiciously, they get "extra attention". No one has been arrested for violating the curfue.

I'm all for civil liberties, but I don't feel like asking someone what they're up to (and ultimately just making a very visible, increased police presence) in order to stem the outbreak of violent crime is an infringement on anyone's rights.

Technically, it is a violation of the 4th amendment to detain someone without legal cause. The Supreme Court ruled (long time ago) that detaining someone is considered a seizure of their person.

Um, well, we already have almost exactly that going on here.

Dude, you are so way off base with that comment, it's not even funny.

The legal cause in which you subscribe to the 4th Amendment, is later addressed by the 10th Amendment. If a local curfew is violated, then there is legal cause for the local authorities to detain and question the violator. The federal Government isn't involved with any of it.

Take off the tinfoil plzzzkkkthks....

Tell that to the thousands of "enemy combatants" who have received exactly the "Siberialand" treatment you described. Nevermind that most of them turned out to be completely innocent and harmless.

It would be martial law if the Army were the ones enforcing the curfew, rather than the police.

I sometimes wonder if someone shouldn't open up a theme park based on Moscow during the Cold War. One of the featured attractions would be as you are walking along side the road, an unmarked black sedan would pull up, and several men dressed in dark suits would get out, and usher 1 of your family into the car. For the next 3 hours or so, they'd be "interrogated" about thier subversive activities: complete with spotlight, cigarette smoke, and veiled threats against the family if they don't "cooperate". Once the confession is signed, they are allowed to return to see the family before being shipped off to "Siberialand".

Then people might have an idea as to what martial law is really like.


Cold war nothing, this shit still happens there all the time. I have a friend whose dad goes there all the time, lot of family back there.

Read the article again. Thats their personal feelings, and there's been plenty of stand-up and sit coms on how nothing good ever happens after 2 am. Their curfue doesn't disallow anyone from going out after 3 AM, it just asks where they are going - and if they act suspiciously, they get "extra attention". No one has been arrested for violating the curfue.

I'm all for civil liberties, but I don't feel like asking someone what they're up to (and ultimately just making a very visible, increased police presence) in order to stem the outbreak of violent crime is an infringement on anyone's rights.

It's 3 AM, you're walking down the street in your neighborhood. A cop pulls up and asks you where you're going. You say "I'm just taking a walk" he says "Where"? You say, "just a walk, I'm wide awake and wanted fresh air"

The situation will not end there and most likely will not end in a good way in an environment like this. This all comes down to what social and educational programs should be implemented, is it really best to spend the money on an occupying force moreso than it is to spend it on education, jobs programs such as a WPA type of program. Either way the money is going to be spent it comes down to what do you spend it on.

It's 3 AM, you're walking down the street in your neighborhood. A cop pulls up and asks you where you're going. You say "I'm just taking a walk" he says "Where"? You say, "just a walk, I'm wide awake and wanted fresh air"

The situation will not end there and most likely will not end in a good way in an environment like this.

That is complete assumption on your part Rover, and is the exact line of thinking the ACLU uses to challenge these attempts to reinforce the social contract that Kanyli mentioned. The social contract indeed has failed, when citizens accept the gangs and drug dealing and do little more than point fingers at the elected officials and local police and blame them for the problems.

I see nothing wrong with the local jurisdiction imposing a curfew if they believe it will assist in lowering criminal activity. There are some parameters that need to be carefully scrutinized, however, and enforced rigidly. It is important that the police officers in such areas are well educated to their exact responsibilities and limit of authority. If someone is stopped after curfew and asked what they are doing, and asks why, it is important that they be told they were stopped for a possible curfew violation, and not "because I am the law and I can".

I think trying to attract some small industry for jobs, and getting strong neighborhood watch programs going (with decent monetary rewards for info leading to arrests and convictions) would do more to change the local situation, but for the time being curfews are the choice du jour.


An interesting concept floated at a recent "bull' session was to establish some type of monetary fund. that would provide funds/college tuition/etc to the survivors of any terminally ill person who takes a proactive stand in their last days, essentially declaring hunting season open on gang bangers, drug dealers, sex offenders, etc. Now, while this would seem to fly in the face of the social contract, it at the same time reinforces that contract that we are all in this together and need to step up to take care of one another, and if that means taking out the trash, so be it. Interesting food for thought.

If you don't have anything to hide, then why don't you show them your papers!?

Some of you are so off base an elderly man with two broken arms could throw the pickoff so ya'll get tagged out.

This is no violation, curfews are local laws and as such give the police the right to question what a person is up to. The feds have nothing to do with this law as it is well within a local city/state to enact such measures.

Apparently some of you live in gang free areas and don't see a RISING problem that won't go away if good citizens spend their time handcuffing the officials instead of trying to solve the problem.

Some of you are so off base an elderly man with two broken arms could throw the pickoff so ya'll get tagged out.

This is no violation, curfews are local laws and as such give the police the right to question what a person is up to. The feds have nothing to do with this law as it is well within a local city/state to enact such measures.

Apparently some of you live in gang free areas and don't see a RISING problem that won't go away if good citizens spend their time handcuffing the officials instead of trying to solve the problem.

I have no problems with this, up until I get arrested for getting Taco Bell at 3am

I have no problems with this, up until I get arrested for getting Taco Bell at 3am

I agree then that would be a problem. However this hasn't been happening has it?

For example one of the local cities here has a curfew for under 18 ( think this is the age) of midnight.

They find kids out that late they take'em to the station and call the parents/legal guardians.

I agree then that would be a problem. However this hasn't been happening has it?

For example one of the local cities here has a curfew for under 18 ( think this is the age) of midnight.

They find kids out that late they take'em to the station and call the parents/legal guardians.

Sounds reasonable to me... It makes more sense to bend some of our rights a tiny bit to take care of domestic problems such as gang violence and graffiti,

This is no violation, curfews are local laws and as such give the police the right to question what a person is up to. The feds have nothing to do with this law as it is well within a local city/state to enact such measures.



And a local police department and city law can still violate constitutional rights. Kind of like medical marijuana is legal in California but against federal law so the feds raid places that sell medical marijuana.

Federal law seems to always trump local laws, shouldn't constitutional rights do the same?

Friend of mine lived in Arkansas and said every city has a curfew... She is surprised we don't have one in Los Angeles, and said that none of them consider it a big deal...

/nods Jedd this is becoming common throughout gang issue areas.

It's not a big deal, they don't throw you in the gulag , tho some tin hats in the ACLU would have you believe this, when they catch you out grubbing it up in the middle of the night.

We need to remembe the ACLU used to be a force for rights and had a clear mission. It's only in the last 20ish years that we seem to see them siding more and more with thugery and have clear political goals for each of their cases.

And a local police department and city law can still violate constitutional rights. Kind of like medical marijuana is legal in California but against federal law so the feds raid places that sell medical marijuana.

Federal law seems to always trump local laws, shouldn't constitutional rights do the same?

Which ones? What constitutional laws apply in the case of local jurisdictions having curfews?

Too often people who resent not having complete freedom to do as they please when they please toss out the phrase "my constitutional rights are being violated". In fact, they usually are not. You cannot have a civilized society without the social contract of what is and is not acceptable behavior. In the case at hand, curfews are being implemented to maintain what is acceptable behavior, and prevent that which is not. The ACLU can argue all they want about rights, but until there is a decision from the Bench supporting that contention, curfews will be seen more frequently, I expect.

Which ones? What constitutional laws apply in the case of local jurisdictions having curfews?

The 4th Amendment is definitely in play if they detain you (at home, going about your business, or otherwise) without probable cause.

Bottom line is this... If they force you to not leave your house, it is unconstitutional. If they ask you why your out in order to cut down on crime in the city, constitutional.

The 4th Amendment is definitely in play if they detain you (at the scene or otherwise) without probable cause.

The probable cause is that your out after 3am which they have made a law decreeing as curfew

That's not PC.

That'll hold up as well as saying chrome rims are PC for stopping cars and searching them for drugs.

That's not PC.

That'll hold up as well as saying chrome rims are PC for stopping cars and searching them for drugs.


Oh I'm 100% certain the curfews will hold up just fine. NOONE is flipping hurt by being held accountable.

focking tinfoil hats and paper revolutionaries all...

Accountable for... what? Trying to enjoy some life, liberty, and/or pursuit of happiness?

Since when is it tinfoil hat to suggest going outside shouldn't make you guilty until proven innocent? That's absurd beyond words.

Apparently some of you live in gang free areas and don't see a RISING problem that won't go away if good citizens spend their time handcuffing the officials instead of trying to solve the problem.I live in an area with rising violence. We have regular shootings, and helicopters overhead wake us up every week or so. Several times I haven't been able to get home on time due to police barricades. I still sleep on my bed and not the floor, so we're not quite as bad as described in the article. We desperately need something, but I'm not sure if the tradeoff of safety for a police state is worth it. Thats the thing, and I think about this frequently. I wish they would crack down harder on crime, but it's hard to do that without stripping law-abiding citizens of the things that make living in a free country worthwhile.

Accountable for... what? Trying to enjoy some life, liberty, and/or pursuit of happiness?

Since when is it tinfoil hat to suggest going outside shouldn't make you guilty until proven innocent? That's absurd beyond words.

Good god you're so anti police and rabid in that regard that being stopped and checked out equates automatically to being guilty.

That, is absurd beyond words. I've never seen someone so afraid of the police in all regards that it clouds reason.

Let's get rid of DUI checkpoints while we're at it. They stop everyone going through the checkpoint regardless of guilt. Of course only the guilty need worry about them as well. Zomg that's a loss of liberty!! It's the same logic, how long before the thugs at the ACLU catch onto that one. That way the Drinkers and drivers can feel even more free out on the road.

What you describe anymore is not freedom or civil liberties. It's anarchy with all trust thrown to the people without regard to others.

Good god you're so anti police and rabid in that regard that being stopped and checked out equates automatically to being guilty.

That, is absurd beyond words. I've never seen someone so afraid of the police in all regards that it clouds reason.

Uh, that holds about as much water as the time that you thought I was anti-gun... Take a look at my recent post, very explicitly stating how I feel about law enforcement.

http://ayonae.com/showpost.php?p=144156&postcount=5

I think the Roswell PD and GSP are great, for example.

However, I don't think it's okay to unquestioningly trade away our hard-won freedoms just because things get tough. It flies in the face of everything our country has ever stood for.

The worst kind of cowardice is the kind that leads a man to trade away his liberty for governmental protection. It's pathetic how we, as a country, are more and more panty-waists that are afraid of every shadow these days.



Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Or, maybe you think you know better than those silly founding father guys... :rolleyes:

I guess in 1776, you would have called them "paper revolutionaries".

Also, coming down on the ALCU isn't the answer here. In case you misread the article, the ALCU is simply pointing out that arrests made won't stick, because they're likely going to be unconstitutional.

However, such stops likely violate residents' constitutional rights to freely assemble and protections against unreasonable police searches, said Holly Dickson, a lawyer for the ACLU of Arkansas who addressed the council at its packed Tuesday meeting. Because of that, Dickson said any convictions coming from the arrests likely would be overturned

The ALCU isn't looking to defend criminals. It's trying to get these guys to understand that they're just setting the thugs up to get away with what they were actually doing, due to the illegality of their arrests. All they'll need is a marginally competent defense attorney.

If that city council cares the first thing about actually stopping these criminals, they'd do well to listen to the ALCU and do it right.

However, I don't think it's okay to unquestioningly trade away our hard-won freedoms just because things get tough. It flies in the face of everything our country has ever stood for.

The worst kind of cowardice is the kind that leads a man to trade away his liberty for governmental protection. It's pathetic how we, as a country, are more and more panty-waists that are afraid of every shadow these days.


I don't consider it a loss of freedom for a police officer to ask me questions at 3am. I consider it police doing what they are paid for. Protecting me from the 3 thugs in the car behind me who are probably following me home to break into my house, bang my wife and steal my shit before they put a bullet in my head.

Domestic issues are easier to swallow giving up some comfort for then fake terrorist threats... That is all your giving up a bit of, your comfort. Not your rights.

For what though?

You can choose to give up a bit of your rights, but that doesn't force anyone else to. We'll hear about these arrests in the short term, yet nothing about the fact that they will all be acquitted due to the unconstitutional nature of the arrests.

That helps no one, except that mayor trying to ham it up for the reporters.

Honestly, if the police there are so inept or corrupt that they cannot make arrests when there is apparently war in the streets, they are clearly not fit to fulfill their duties. That should be as much the focus of this as anything.

For what though?

You can choose to give up a bit of your rights, but that doesn't force anyone else to. We'll hear about these arrests in the short term, yet nothing about the fact that they will all be acquitted due to the unconstitutional nature of the arrests.

That helps no one, except that mayor trying to ham it up for the reporters.

Honestly, if the police there are so inept or corrupt that they cannot make arrests when there is apparently war in the streets, they are clearly not fit to fulfill their duties. That should be as much the focus of this as anything.

You are not giving up your rights Sanchek.... You are giving up a bit of comfort. Nothing more

Criminals and drunk drivers are giving up their rights, but that is their own fault.

The lunacy of your claim is outrageous San.

Where are you missing the fact that curfews are nothing new. Hell they've been around 30 plus years that I can attest to.

Guess what, you get pulled over late at night for suspicion of being a minor and you're doing something illegal it's a legit arrest.

Good hell it's painful to watch this , it really is. Checkpoints and curfews are not illegal and in no way strip ole San of his freedoms.

The lunacy of your claim is outrageous San.

Where are you missing the fact that curfews are nothing new. Hell they've been around 30 plus years that I can attest to.

Guess what, you get pulled over late at night for suspicion of being a minor and you're doing something illegal it's a legit arrest.

Good hell it's painful to watch this , it really is. Checkpoints and curfews are not illegal and in no way strip ole San of his freedoms.

His concerns are more relevant when presented as possible concerns if the police break the rules they are supposed to abide by according to the curfew. But heck, those concerns can be applied to ANYTHING police officers do.

As long as they follow procedure, and act like a police officer is supposed to there is no problem with pulling someone over to ask them a question.

Heck, Ive been pulled over for not breaking the law, and given a key chain by a police officer for being a good driver. Should I sue?

/nods Jedd but I'm not one to try and fight a Curfew/checkpoint based soley on the fact some cop might step over the law.

If you travel down that road you start to think the cops shouldn't have the right to pull you over for speeding until they got some form of Video judge to proclaim the driver guilty first.

I'd rather assume the Police are there to do their jobs as opposed as constantly seeing them as a possible evil. That way lies paranoia and a breaking down of anything remotely out of your control.

/nods Jedd but I'm not one to try and fight a Curfew/checkpoint based soley on the fact some cop might step over the law.

If you travel down that road you start to think the cops shouldn't have the right to pull you over for speeding until they got some form of Video judge to proclaim the driver guilty first.

I'd rather assume the Police are there to do their jobs as opposed as constantly seeing them as a possible evil. That way lies paranoia and a breaking down of anything remotely out of your control.

/agree

Honestly, if the police there are so inept or corrupt that they cannot make arrests when there is apparently war in the streets, they are clearly not fit to fulfill their duties. That should be as much the focus of this as anything.


And thus we get to the crux of your argument. But before slamming the local police there, have you made an attempt to find out the numbers on the force compared to the size of the town? How many are available for patrol at night (when they were experiencing the high crime volume) and in what ratio of patrol to territory/city blocks?

My assumption would be that a small town in Arkansas where there is high unemployment and a large portion of 'poor' residents is not going to have a large tax base to hire a large police force, so they are doing their best to make do with the tools available, and one of those is the very legal tool of a curfew.

Checkpoints and curfews are not illegal and in no way strip ole San of his freedoms.

Fandros, you're trying so hard to make it about me that you're missing the point.

Your traffic stop analogy brings us back to the same problem. If a cop pulls you over simply because he thinks you look a little trashy and might have meth on you, then finds meth in your car, the whole thing gets thrown out in court (assuming you get a lawyer that graduated high school).

It doesn't matter how little you personally care about the Constitution, law enforcement still must abide by it or they're doing a disservice to us all.

Fandros, you're trying so hard to make it about me that you're missing the point.

Your traffic stop analogy brings us back to the same problem. If a cop pulls you over simply because he thinks you look a little trashy and might have meth on you, then finds meth in your car, the whole thing gets thrown out in court (assuming you get a lawyer that graduated high school).

It doesn't matter how little you personally care about the Constitution, law enforcement still must abide by it or they're doing a disservice to us all.

True.

The officer must have cause, such as a broken light or not wearing seat belt or some driving offense, or being out after legally posted curfew.

The police chief said the officers in the field carry military-style M-16 or M-4 rifles, some equipped with laser sights.

They don't sound that broke to me.

The officer must have cause, such as a broken light or not wearing seat belt or some driving offense, or being out after legally posted curfew.

An arrest made with that as its only excuse for PC will simply not stand up in court.

http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/cjcurfew.html


I found this to be an interesting read. It shows that some cases have stood and some not, and also that the SC has not yet made a ruling on the Constitutionality of curfew laws.


Edit:

Here is another interesting piece, which makes more mention of the efforts to challenge the Constitutionality as well as some discussion of the overall effectiveness of curfews.

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/PUBS/reform/ch2_c.html

I think the purpose of this curfew and crackdown is really being lost on San...

Let me explain one of the benefits and a way that it would hold up in court.

If there are not supposed to be people in the street after 3am, then this scenario may ensue.


A report comes in of a crime about a mile away and as an officer heads to the location of the crime, another officer pulls over the ONLY CAR in the street which was driving rather suspiciously away from the location of the crime.

The description the 911 operator received of the criminals is the same as this driver that was just pulled over. BOOM... YOU ARE UNDER ARREST.

The fact that this car was the ONLY ONE in the street made it not only easier to find, but also gave them the right to pull over the vehicle in the first place, and the reason for the actual arrest would be from the description given of the criminal. Therefore it will hold up in court.

To be clear, I don't think curfews are illegal or anything. I apparently am an e-paper-anarchist, but don't forget my original post here:

it irks me a little to see people all over the Internet calling this "martial law", because it isn't. Curfews aren't uncommon at all.

However, the only curfews that are really common at all are juvenile curfews and curfews during natural disasters. The point of the curfews are to keep kids at home at night, and keep people safe before/during/after things like floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

Using them as a tool to make arrests is a) not something that's business as usual and b) not constitutional.

Ah by they are not using the curfew as a way to make arrests, they are doing so to keep the people safe. Just like they do in your other 2 scenarios.

The level of violent crime is much like a disaster area, that isn't business as usual either.

Ah by they are not using the curfew as a way to make arrests

That's not how they're portraying it:
Among the curfew operation's arrests, 10 came from felony charges, including the arrest of two people carrying both drugs and weapons, Fielder said.

"Protecting" people by limiting their freedoms isn't protection. By that logic, we could just throw the whole 10 blocks of poor people in a prison camp and call it a day.

That's not how they're portraying it:


"Protecting" people by limiting their freedoms isn't protection. By that logic, we could just throw the whole 10 blocks of poor people in a prison camp and call it a day.

Sorry if i don't sympathize with some meth addict who might kill my family members for money to get high...

Sorry if i don't sympathize with some meth addict who might kill my family members for money to get high...

How Republican!

Regardless, I see San's point, the issue is of legitimate arrests that will keep the bad guys in jail, because the police did it by the book.

If a curfew is in effect, and you are out past the curfew, then you are breaking a local law. Since the Federal Government cannot issue a curfew, that right is passed along to the states, as is explained in Amendment 10.

If the people are in violation of the curfew, then that's the "probable cause" needed to investigate further. If they find the guy toting a bazooka and he claims he was on his way to go visit his sick granny at 2 AM, he is gonna get hit with a felony.

How Republican!

Oh you would be surprised how many "Republican" beliefs I have... Just happens that I disagree with them more then I agree with them.

To be clear, I don't think curfews are illegal or anything. I apparently am an e-paper-anarchist, but don't forget my original post here:



However, the only curfews that are really common at all are juvenile curfews and curfews during natural disasters. The point of the curfews are to keep kids at home at night, and keep people safe before/during/after things like floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

Using them as a tool to make arrests is a) not something that's business as usual and b) not constitutional.

Sorry, wrong on both counts and suprisingly so.

They'll hold up in court, it's not against the law or the constitution and since you've shown zero cases for abuse I don't see your fear.

Btw, it's not about you San...it's about this opinion you have of police abuse on all levels.

I support more curfews in areas where violent crime is an issue at night. As it is in the area in question....

Fandros, I don't understand why you refuse to do even cursory research about my opinions before trying to put words in my mouth (fingers?)... Feel free to start a thread in FFA to go fishing for Sanchek cop hate that doesn't exist, but stick to what you know here please.

The curfew is probably legal, but using the curfew as PC for investigation leading to arrests will be trivial to overturn for anyone who lawyers up. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, that's simply how things work in this country (unless you're an "enemy combatant", of course).

Sixee, it's also important to understand that the 10th Amendment is rarely upheld when used to infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed by other amendments, such as the 1st and 4th.

As some of you may know, my girlfriend is an attorney (and has studied a lot of con-law). She said:

Erin: that is ludicrous
Erin: that is way overbroad
Erin: when you are infringing on constitutional rights, it is analyzed under strict scrutiny
Erin: and i don't think this would pass constitutional muster
Erin: you have to have a COMPELLING state interest, the action has to be necessary to achieve that interest and also must be the least restrictive alternative
Erin: the 4th amendment has been eviscerated already, it's so ridiculous

(later)

Erin: let me clarify
Erin: when a FUNDAMENTAL constitutional right is being infringed
Erin: that is when strict scrutiny is applied
Erin: 1st amendment is fundamental
Erin: right to free assembly free speech etc.
Erin: not all constitutional rights are afforded strict scrutiny

When it comes to legal issues, I'm more inclined to believe a practicing attorney specifically educated in constitutional case law, than a guy working on airplanes (and I wouldn't want her working on my airplane!). Sorry.

Sorry I'm late to the discussion, lots of things to touch on here. First
Friend of mine lived in Arkansas and said every city has a curfew... She is surprised we don't have one in Los Angeles, and said that none of them consider it a big deal...

Perhaps you do have a friend that lives/lived here, but she is way off base. I know of a couple of towns that have juvenile curfews. Every town? Not even close, and the only general curfew I have heard about is this situation in Helena.

The legal cause in which you subscribe to the 4th Amendment, is later addressed by the 10th Amendment. If a local curfew is violated, then there is legal cause for the local authorities to detain and question the violator.

If a curfew is in effect, and you are out past the curfew, then you are breaking a local law. Since the Federal Government cannot issue a curfew, that right is passed along to the states, as is explained in Amendment 10.

Six, your understanding of Constitutional law could use a little more critical thinking. Just because a curfew per se was not enumerated in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution does not give the states that right per the 10th Amendment. If the curfew violates the 4th Amendment (unreasonable seizure), then the state does not have that right. I would say it would actually violate the 1st Amendment (freedom of assembly). The 10th Amendment can not trump the 1st and the 4th.

This is no violation, curfews are local laws and as such give the police the right to question what a person is up to.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
A curfew law might be legal, but it does not give the police any right whatsoever to question me about what I am doing. It gives them a right to give me a ticket or to arrest me. That is it. Keep surrendering your rights, but leave mine alone.

I support more curfews in areas where violent crime is an issue at night.

And if your neighborhood was put under curfew? That's the problem, everyone is great at supporting limits on freedoms somewhere else. But it is like a cancer. You can pretend it is necessary to catch the bad guys and is done in the common good, but it won't stay that way.

Freedom isn't free and the moment you stop fighting for it, you've lost it.

I would say it would actually violate the 1st Amendment (freedom of assembly). The 10th Amendment can not trump the 1st and the 4th.

As I stated earlier, the rights afforded us in the Constitution are not negated by ANY local or state laws. If they were then it is just a simple piece of useless paper. I'm amazed at how many in this country will lay down in complete obedience no matter what they are told.

Question authority...it is all we can do.

But I personally still fail to see where it violates the 1st Amendment, and since no one has sued yet after DC doing the same thing months ago it leads me to believe no one locally has the feeling that it violated their Constitutional rights either.

That's a good point Kelraz, and a good reason to suspect those claiming it's taking away their rights.

Folks are dying , property being damaged and the populace afraid to go out at night. So yes the police are taking action, a solid action and a short term one I'm sure.

As for the Constitution being end all be all I agree, but I also note there are Amendments after the fact.........

But I personally still fail to see where it violates the 1st Amendment, and since no one has sued yet after DC doing the same thing months ago it leads me to believe no one locally has the feeling that it violated their Constitutional rights either.

If you can't see where not being allowed out of your house doesn't run head against the freedom to peacefully assemble, I'm probably just tilting at windmills even trying to explain it.

I don't believe curfews are illegal in and of themselves. They are useful tools in times of disaster to maintain calm and order. And, as has been stated, they are in use in many places as juvenile curfews. But once you start using them for open ended disasters like "The War on Crime", you are opening Pandora's Box.

If you can't see where not being allowed out of your house doesn't run head against the freedom to peacefully assemble, I'm probably just tilting at windmills even trying to explain it.

I don't believe curfews are illegal in and of themselves. They are useful tools in times of disaster to maintain calm and order. And, as has been stated, they are in use in many places as juvenile curfews. But once you start using them for open ended disasters like "The War on Crime", you are opening Pandora's Box.


I posted a link to the American Bar Association article (or article on their web page) I saw regarding curfews, which is not exactly in agreement with all you are saying, and it might be an interesting read for you as it was for me. I think it was one or two pages back.

Some cases appealed have been upheld and some overturned, which speaks more to the specific circumstances than the overall curfew laws; and, the SC has not taken a case yet apparently to offer an end-all be-all determination.

And, your comment regarding a "War on Crime" opening a Pandora's Box will be valid when they start authorizing citizens to shoot on sight any gang-banger dealing drugs in their neighborhood. Asking that people remain in their homes unless they have valid business on the streets between Midnight and 6 am is not that big of a deal, since most that are out actually either do have a valid reason, or are engaged in behavior that can be reasonably questioned. People living in high crime areas do not tend to go for 3am walks because they cannot sleep.

I don't think you can compare a juvenile curfew during school hours with a 24 hour a day blanket curfew. That's not even the same ballpark.

To see that even the less restrictive one is 50/50 shows what precarious ground the West Helena one is on.

I don't think I've ever come across a juvenile curfew that was there to protect them, other than from themselves. Might be sold that way, but that's not the real reason for implementation. They are there to control teens and below, because we don't trust them at night and think they'll cause problems.

True or not, apply that thinking to blanket curfews.

I don't think you can compare a juvenile curfew during school hours with a 24 hour a day blanket curfew. That's not even the same ballpark.

To see that even the less restrictive one is 50/50 shows what precarious ground the West Helena one is on.



"By and large, many of the most recent cases, other than Hutchins, have upheld the constitutionality of curfew ordinances, and largely on the basis of statistical data about the incidence of serious juvenile crime similar to that presented to the federal court in Dallas in Qutb. However, as serious juvenile crime continues to decline, as it has for the last few years, as data accumulate about the common times for violent offending, and as evaluations of the effectiveness of curfew ordinances continue to yield ambiguous conclusions about their impact on crime statistics, the legal debate may become more intense and the results somewhat less predictable. Future cases may also address more exhaustively the disproportionate impact the enforcement of curfew ordinances has on youth of color, an issue alluded to briefly in Qutb, but rejected summarily, to reinforce the arguments on family autonomy and parental authority. Attacks on curfew ordinances largely have been the province of civil rights and civil liberties lawyers to date, but as the number of ordinances continues to proliferate, and pretextual stops or detentions on curfew grounds increase, resulting in other, more serious criminal or delinquency charges, the legal assaults on the laws may mount in the broader criminal or juvenile defense bar."

[Quoted from the article I linked on page five from the American Bar Association]


The court has dealt with much more than simply juvenile curfew during school hours, and the rulings/precedents that have resulted are what the law has available at the moment when discussing curfew law. That much of the rationale for the thread topic curfew comes from what can be alleged to be juvenile gang-related activity (drugs, shootings, etc) might offer the law enforcement more in the way of legal reinforcement.

For example: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/GeneralCounsel/caselaw/casefinder/files/907-So.2d-1101.html

The cases were consolidated, and a 4-justice majority of the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the DCA’s decision declaring the ordinances unconstitutional. The supreme court found that the curfew ordinances burdened the juveniles’ fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of movement, and were thus subject to strict scrutiny. Although the cities had a compelling interest in protecting juveniles from victimization and reducing juvenile crime, the supreme court found that the ordinances were not narrowly tailored to advance the compelling interests asserted. The curfews were deemed too broad in covering otherwise innocent and legal conduct of minors even where they had permission from their parents. In addition, the imposition of criminal penalties violated the narrow tailoring requirement in that such penalties were not the least intrusive means of achieving the cities’ stated interests.

Notice they even use the same language Erin did. This stuff is pretty well established, from what she said.

And again, that's just a juvenile curfew for about 6 hours during the nighttime. It should be obvious how ridiculous a blanket 24 hour curfew is, sans some natural disaster or martial law.

For example: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/GeneralCounsel/caselaw/casefinder/files/907-So.2d-1101.html

Notice they even use the same language Erin did. This stuff is pretty well established, from what she said.

And again, that's just a juvenile curfew for about 6 hours during the nighttime. It should be obvious how ridiculous a blanket 24 hour curfew is, sans some natural disaster or martial law.

Natural disaster is acceptable and constitutional but a disaster area from violence isn't, even if the bulk of the citizens who are under the curfew aren't complaining and are happy its happening? You realize the curfew that happened after Katrina wasn't to protect people from fallen trees or snakes or mutant squirrels - it was to protect people from the violence outbreak that happened after the event. Its the SAME difference.

When it comes to legal issues, I'm more inclined to believe a practicing attorney specifically educated in constitutional case law, than a guy working on airplanes (and I wouldn't want her working on my airplane!). Sorry.

I don't work on airplanes, I fix the computers that people use to build airplanes. If her's is the defenitive answer, then why are there laywers that argue otherwise? Why aren't criminals suing, claiming that thier Constitutional Rights are being violated?

Just because a curfew per se was not enumerated in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution does not give the states that right per the 10th Amendment. If the curfew violates the 4th Amendment (unreasonable seizure), then the state does not have that right. I would say it would actually violate the 1st Amendment (freedom of assembly). The 10th Amendment can not trump the 1st and the 4th.

Wouldn't crime in and of itself violate the entire bill of rights? Isn't it kind of hard to freely assemble, practice religion, and say what you want when you are too busy trying to dodge gunfire from gangstas?

A curfew law might be legal, but it does not give the police any right whatsoever to question me about what I am doing. So you'd rather go to jail outright, rather than the friendly officer asking what's up? He's still gonna find the 2 lbs of Carribean Green you have hidden in your wheel wells, regardless.

Why aren't criminals suing, claiming that thier Constitutional Rights are being violated?

They won't sue. They'll have their arrests overturned easily. That's what I've been saying, and what the ALCU has been trying to point out.

Using a 24 hour curfew to make arrests boils down to either gross incompetence or a publicity stunt by the city council.

Natural disaster is acceptable and constitutional but a disaster area from violence isn't, even if the bulk of the citizens who are under the curfew aren't complaining and are happy its happening? You realize the curfew that happened after Katrina wasn't to protect people from fallen trees or snakes or mutant squirrels - it was to protect people from the violence outbreak that happened after the event. Its the SAME difference.

As was mentioned earlier, you cannot infringe upon a basic Constitutional right unless doing so is the least restrictive alternative.

The argument for Katrina's curfew isn't even remotely comparable to what they did in Arkansas. They had no law enforcement capacity in New Orleans. The police in West Helena are running around with assault riffles.

Unfortunately, I think it sadly boils down to what Filatal said about everyone being okay with this sort of thing until it happens to them.

"As far as I'm concerned, at 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law," Councilman Eugene "Red" Johnson said. "Anyone out at 3 o'clock shouldn't be out on the street, unless you're going to the hospital."

Since "Red" Johnson doesn't think it's okay for someone in Arkansas to be out at 3 O'Clock, he thinks it might as well just be illegal. I guess you guys had better hope someone doesn't arbitrarily decide that the particular way you exercise your freedom isn't suddenly unreasonable too, huh?

I guess you guys had better hope someone doesn't arbitrarily decide that the particular way you exercise your freedom isn't suddenly unreasonable too, huh?

Seriously. For most of my adult life (from about 1984-2000), I worked the graveyard shift, which meant on my nights off, I wouldn't bother to get turned around, but rather did my shopping, laundry, went out to the Putt-Putt, to play videogames etc, in the middle of the night. Frequently I walked or bicycled to these activities - my point being that being up and out at 3am isn't *necessarily* a suspicious activity in and of itself and considering just doing one's normal life activities in the middle of the night 'probable cause' for search/questioning is ridiculous. And even most small Arkansas towns have shift workers, but since when is having a circadian abnormality (being a night owl) a crime?

Sorry I'm not so coherent on the topic this morning but well, it's morning, and I wouldn't be up (having gone to sleep at my customary 5 am) if I didn't have to be ;)

Regards,
Nydia

Nydia, were you living in a particulary crime-prone area when you were pursuing your 'nocturnal lifestyle'? If you were, wouldn't you feel a little better that there *was* a police presence?

Having been pulled over by the police and subsequently handcuffed, and put in the back of a squad car because I fit the description of a 'person of interest' hasn't left *me* with a bad taste in my mouth.

On the contrary, my faith in the system was restored, when they let me go because the actual suspect was being simutaneously taken into custody a few miles down the road, by another police officer.

I suppose I could have used that incident to up my 'victim status' and rally against 'the man'. Instead, I understand we have a flawed system, but it does work.

And before you use the 'you are a white guy and wouldn't understand' argument, the officer that detained me was African-american, and *very* apologetic/professional in his demeanor.

Sigh ... But its not a crime. They are just asking why people are out, not searching them or locking them up. If being asked why you are out on your bike might save a few lives, its totally worth it.

Having been pulled over by the police and subsequently handcuffed, and put in the back of a squad car because I fit the description of a 'person of interest' hasn't left *me* with a bad taste in my mouth.

On the contrary, my faith in the system was restored, when they let me go because the actual suspect was being simutaneously taken into custody a few miles down the road, by another police officer.

It sounds more than anything like you were spectacularly lucky. Should've bought a lottery ticket that day!

Sigh ... But its not a crime. They are just asking why people are out, not searching them or locking them up. If being asked why you are out on your bike might save a few lives, its totally worth it.

/nods Kelraz

Funny thing is we have San calling this shoddy policework but would he call it so if a car load of thugs did a driveby in his neighborhood?

A carload that would've drawn attention breaking a curfew and could've been pulled over and questioned?

I suspose these folks are advocating profiling as good solid policework...oh wait they can't do that either....errrr

I know I know!!

They just have to hire psychics!!!

They just have to hire psychics!!!


I was going to call a psychic once, but then figured if he was any good he already knew I was going to call him, and why, and should have already called me with the answer to my question.

Funny thing is we have San calling this shoddy policework but would he call it so if a car load of thugs did a driveby in his neighborhood?

If carloads of thugs were driving around Roswell, Georgia, that would absolutely be shoddy police work.

We had some issues downtown, with a gang or two that moved in after being displaced by Katrina. City, county, state, and federal law enforcement moved in, legally made a case, rounded them all up, and seized all of their weapons.

I am thankful that the local government here wasn't as moronic as that in West-Helena. While the gang members arrested in AK will start being released soon, due to Mark Fuhrman-esque police work, the ones they arrested here will still be off my streets.

BTW, to those of you saying that no one there is complaining or that no one's getting arrested just for being out without a "good enough excuse".

ut_-zvZWgrI

5YPdq8DusSg

Can't even go outside on your own property? Come on. Who can possibly support that in this country?

I found this to be interesting in light of the "local things are just local" attitudes. Notice how those "thugs" at the ACLU are once again supporting things of the past like the 4th amendment.

All joking aside. It's time for the populace to stand up and vehemently oppose bullshit like this. Can they soon say they are imposing curfewws to help gather intelligence and since they are local there are constitutional provisions covering this? I think we are seeing a "watch out what you wish for" thing happening.

Link to article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503497.html)

Or if you don't want to follow the link:

U.S. May Ease Police Spy Rules More Federal Intelligence Changes Planned


The Justice Department has proposed a new domestic spying measure that would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years.

The proposed changes would revise the federal government's rules for police intelligence-gathering for the first time since 1993 and would apply to any of the nation's 18,000 state and local police agencies that receive roughly $1.6 billion each year in federal grants.

Quietly unveiled late last month, the proposal is part of a flurry of domestic intelligence changes issued and planned by the Bush administration in its waning months. They include a recent executive order that guides the reorganization of federal spy agencies and a pending Justice Department overhaul of FBI procedures for gathering intelligence and investigating terrorism cases within U.S. borders.

Taken together, critics in Congress and elsewhere say, the moves are intended to lock in policies for Bush's successor and to enshrine controversial post-Sept. 11 approaches that some say have fed the greatest expansion of executive authority since the Watergate era.
ad_icon

Supporters say the measures simply codify existing counterterrorism practices and policies that are endorsed by lawmakers and independent experts such as the 9/11 Commission. They say the measures preserve civil liberties and are subject to internal oversight.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the administration agrees that it needs to do everything possible to prevent unwarranted encroachments on civil liberties, adding that it succeeds the overwhelming majority of the time.

Bush homeland security adviser Kenneth L. Wainstein said, "This is a continuum that started back on 9/11 to reform law enforcement and the intelligence community to focus on the terrorism threat."

Under the Justice Department proposal for state and local police, published for public comment July 31, law enforcement agencies would be allowed to target groups as well as individuals, and to launch a criminal intelligence investigation based on the suspicion that a target is engaged in terrorism or providing material support to terrorists. They also could share results with a constellation of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and others in many cases.

Criminal intelligence data starts with sources as basic as public records and the Internet, but also includes law enforcement databases, confidential and undercover sources, and active surveillance.

Jim McMahon, deputy executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said the proposed changes "catch up with reality" in that those who investigate crimes such as money laundering, drug trafficking and document fraud are best positioned to detect terrorists. He said the rule maintains the key requirement that police demonstrate a "reasonable suspicion" that a target is involved in a crime before collecting intelligence.

"It moves what the rules were from 1993 to the new world we live in, but it maintains civil liberties," McMahon said.

However, Michael German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the proposed rule may be misunderstood as permitting police to collect intelligence even when no underlying crime is suspected, such as when a person gives money to a charity that independently gives money to a group later designated a terrorist organization.


The rule also would allow criminal intelligence assessments to be shared outside designated channels whenever doing so may avoid danger to life or property -- not only when such danger is "imminent," as is now required, German said.

On the day the police proposal was put forward, the White House announced it had updated Reagan-era operating guidelines for the U.S. intelligence community. The revised Executive Order 12333 established guidelines for overseas spying and called for better sharing of information with local law enforcement. It directed the CIA and other spy agencies to "provide specialized equipment, technical knowledge or assistance of expert personnel" to support state and local authorities.

And last week, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said that the Justice Department will release new guidelines within weeks to streamline and unify FBI investigations of criminal law enforcement matters and national security threats. The changes will clarify what tools agents can employ and whose approval they must obtain.

The recent moves continue a steady expansion of the intelligence role of U.S. law enforcement, breaking down a wall erected after congressional hearings in 1976 to rein in such activity.
ad_icon

The push to transform FBI and local police intelligence operations has triggered wider debate over who will be targeted, what will be done with the information collected and who will oversee such activities.

Many security analysts faulted U.S. authorities after the 2001 terrorist attacks, saying the FBI was not combating terrorist plots before they were carried out and needed to proactively use intelligence. In the years since, civil liberties groups and some members of Congress have criticized the administration for unilaterally expanding surveillance and moving too fast to share sensitive information without safeguards.

Critics say preemptive law enforcement in the absence of a crime can violate the Constitution and due process. They cite the administration's long-running warrantless-surveillance program, which was set up outside the courts, and the FBI's acknowledgment that it abused its intelligence-gathering privileges in hundreds of cases by using inadequately documented administrative orders to obtain telephone, e-mail, financial and other personal records of U.S. citizens without warrants.

Former Justice Department official Jamie S. Gorelick said the new FBI guidelines on their own do not raise alarms. But she cited the recent disclosure that undercover Maryland State Police agents spied on death penalty opponents and antiwar groups in 2005 and 2006 to emphasize that the policies would require close oversight.

"If properly implemented, this should assure the public that people are not being investigated by agencies who are not trained in how to protect constitutional rights," said the former deputy attorney general. "The FBI will need to be vigilant -- both in its policies and its practices -- to live up to that promise."

German, an FBI agent for 16 years, said easing established limits on intelligence-gathering would lead to abuses against peaceful political dissenters. In addition to the Maryland case, he pointed to reports in the past six years that undercover New York police officers infiltrated protest groups before the 2004 Republican National Convention; that California state agents eavesdropped on peace, animal rights and labor activists; and that Denver police spied on Amnesty International and others before being discovered.

"If police officers no longer see themselves as engaged in protecting their communities from criminals and instead as domestic intelligence agents working on behalf of the CIA, they will be encouraged to collect more information," German said. "It turns police officers into spies on behalf of the federal government."

Civil liberties groups also have warned that forthcoming Justice Department rules for the FBI may permit the use of terrorist profiles that could single out religious or ethnic groups such as Muslims or Arabs for investigation.

Mukasey said the changes will give the next president "some of the tools necessary to keep us safe" and will not alter Justice rules that prohibit investigations based on a person's race, religion or speech. He said the new guidelines will make it easier for the FBI to use informants, conduct physical and photographic surveillance, and share data in intelligence cases, on the grounds that doing so should be no harder than in investigations of ordinary crimes.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that updating police intelligence rules is a move "in the right direction. However, the vagueness of the provisions giving broad access to criminal intelligence to undefined agencies . . . is very troubling."

Staff writers Joby Warrick and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

They say the measures preserve civil liberties and are subject to internal oversight.


If that doesnt scare the piss out you............

This preview made me think of Sanchek's dislike for the Po Po.....



RigUfNqmH_c

Nuggets is two forums down.