ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, March 11, 1997 TAG: 9703110092
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-3 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: CHARLOTTESVILLE
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Staff writer Laurence Hammack contributed information to this story.
A part of Roanoke's ordinance was declared "unconstitutionally vague" by a circuit judge in 1995.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia filed a lawsuit Monday challenging Charlottesville's juvenile curfew.
The ACLU is representing five juveniles and three parents who believe the curfew infringes upon their First Amendment rights of free expression and association.
ACLU executive director Kent Willis said there is nothing beneficial about teen curfews.
``They restrict individual freedom. They punish thousands of law-abiding citizens for the crimes of a few. They interfere with a parent's right to decide how mature their children are and how late they should be out,'' he said.
The curfew, which took effect March 1, prohibits youths under 17 from staying out past midnight Sunday through Thursday, or past 1 a.m. on weekends.
The curfew does not apply to teens accompanied by a parent, going to work or attending a school, civil or religious function.
Roanoke City Council passed a curfew ordinance in 1992. It requires minors 16 and younger to be off the streets by 11 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on weekends. Like the Charlottesville law, the ordinance has a number of exceptions that include juveniles accompanied by a parent or those involved in school activities.
While the juvenile curfew has not been challenged in Roanoke, a part of the ordinance that allows parents to be charged for letting their children break curfew was declared "unconstitutionally vague" by a Circuit Court judge in 1995.
In the first and only charge against a parent under the law, police charged a woman who said her son slipped out of the house while she was asleep. Prosecutors pointed out that the woman had been warned that she could face jail time if she let her son stay out too late again.
But the charge was dropped after Judge Diane Strickland ruled that the ordinance was worded so vaguely that it was unenforceable.
LENGTH: Short : 50 linesby CNB