Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, September 1, 1995 TAG: 9509010070
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The decision comes one week after Circuit Judge Diane Strickland ruled that the ordinance is "unconstitutionally vague" as it was applied to Holdaway, who was charged in February after her son crept out of their Southwest Roanoke home while she was sleeping.
Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Gerald Teaster had hoped to use a long string of curfew violations and other problems with the 16-year-old to show that Holdaway was the right person to charge under the ordinance, which he said was reserved as a last resort against parents who regularly allow their children to break curfew.
But after reviewing Strickland's decision, Teaster said Thursday that he will ask a judge to dismiss the charge against Holdaway. He declined to elaborate until a hearing is held, possibly next week.
In her decision, Strickland said authorities were free to prosecute Holdaway under an amended version of the ordinance that passed constitutional muster.
At the time, however, Teaster said the ruling substantially weakened the ordinance and "impaired" his ability to prosecute Holdaway.
Holdaway's attorney, Jeff Dorsey of Salem, had argued that language in the ordinance that made it illegal for a parent to permit, "or by insufficient control to allow," his or her child to break curfew was too vague.
Strickland agreed, saying the wording could be interpreted differently by different people, making compliance "a matter of guesswork." She omitted the offending words "insufficient control," leaving the ordinance to read that parents can face up to 12 months in jail only if they knowingly allow their children to break the curfew.
Because prosecutors already had conceded that Holdaway was asleep when her son left the house, Dorsey had said that he did not expect the prosecution to proceed.
Holdaway was the first - and so far the only - parent charged under the ordinance, passed by City Council in 1992.
James St. Clair, a citizen who served on a task force that studied the curfew issue before recommending that Council pass the ordinance, said he was relieved that Strickland's ruling does not affect the law as it applies to juveniles.
Hundreds of youths 16 or younger have been charged with violating the curfew, which is 11 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on weekends.
But members of the task force also felt strongly that parents should be held responsible in cases where children were regularly allowed to stay out late.
"The whole object was not to fine or harm the parents, but to make them responsible," St. Clair said.
by CNB