• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Introduction
 Preface
 Curfew laws
 Florida's curfew laws
 Appendix














Title: Reports on curfew laws
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072578/00001
 Material Information
Title: Reports on curfew laws
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Florida Children's Commission
Publisher: s.n.
Place of Publication: Talahassee
Publication Date: 1956
Copyright Date: 1956
 Subjects
Subject: Curfew -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Juvenile delinquency -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Florida   ( lcsh )
Juvenile delinquency -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States of America -- Florida -- Bay County
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00072578
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01731747

Table of Contents
    Introduction
        Introduction
    Preface
        Preface
    Curfew laws
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Florida's curfew laws
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Appendix
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
Full Text




INTRODUCTION





The present study of curfew laws in Florida

was undertaken at the request of the Bay County

Children's Committee and several municipalities

interested in the feasibility of enacting curfew

ordinances.

Information was desired as to the value and

effectiveness of curfews for minors in coping with

the problem of juvenile delinquency.

The report was begun in 1955 but due to the

lack of pertinent and verifiable data on the sub-

ject; acquisition of true copies of existing curfew

ordinances from Florida cities; other demands made

on the time of the field representative and addition-

al ramifications, it was not possible to complete the

survey until now.

Correspondence with other states and public and

private child service agencies has indicated consider-

able interest in this subject. It is hoped that the

information contained herein will contribute to a

better understanding of the legal and social aspects of

curfew laws.


'64,3 (

63rc








PREFACE



This study is not to be considered an exhaustive treatment of the social

significance of curfew laws. It is essentially an exploratory venture into

an area where considerable confusion exists. The information presented should

provide a springboard from which additional examination of the topic will be

forthcoming.

The present investigation of curfews reveals a lack of understanding

of the basic nature of this type of legislation. Serious doubt as to the consti-

tutionality of these laws exist but nowhere in the literature reviewed is this

point examined. Also, the textbooks and professional publications surveyed, with

one exception, contain no mention of curfew laws.

Why is this social control mechanism, which limits freedom of movement

for children, neglected in the literature on juvenile delinquency? Does an

"a priori" attitude exist that curfews are of no value and therefore not worthy

of study? Is it because the curfew appears to be a "negative" approach and

should be avoided? Considering the meager data available, it is difficult to

conclude that curfews are of so little importance in delinquency control that

they do not deserve serious attention.

Such attitudes are contrary to much of the findings obtained in a recent

report on Florida curfew ordinances. Increased interest in the curfew, especi-

ally by municipalities, is indicated. The fact that fifty-seven Florida cities

out of two-hundred sixty surveyed have curfew ordinances. The fact that twenty

of these cities report strict enforcement of the curfew. The fact that more

and more cities are requesting information about a model curfew ordinance.

These facts plus many others point up the need for a better understanding of


curfew laws, their advantages and limitations, as a delinquency control

mechanism.






CURFEW TAWS



The value and effectiveness of curfew laws in combating juvenile delinquency

is a topic that has evoked considerable "curb stone" discussion in the United

States since the late 1800's. There are few people who don't have some opinion

on whether they are good or bad. The laymen consider them appropriate for keep-

ing children home at night; policemen look to the curfew as a legal safeguard

for questioning juveniles who may be loitering or wandering the streets after

dark; parents often use the curfew as a means of implementing their decisions

about "getting in" before such and such an hour; lawyers debate their constitu-

tionality in restricting the rights of children. Whenever a group meets to discuss

the problem of juvenile delinquency someone will inevitably make a statement

about the need for a curfew law. The youth, who are directly affected by this

law, are seldom consulted to determine their thoughts on the matter.

Two articles which appeared in the North American Review in 1896 Vnd

1897 provide a basis for recognizing the opposing viewpoints of those favoring

or opposing curfews for children. Many of the generalizations prevail today.

Mrs. John D. Townsend writing on the need for curfews states, "...crimes...

have more or less some connection with the street associations of... children in

the night hours." She attributed these associations to children being deprived

of the home influence in early life and considered the curfew as a way of keeping

them home. Commenting on curfew ordinances in effect at that time she reports

that in 1896, two-hundred cities had adopted the curfew. She concludes by

claiming that "the curfew ordinance places responsibility where it belongs, on

the parents."

xinifred Buck, in an article of rebuttal, in 1897, attempts to analyze


1 Townsend, John D., Mrs. "Curfew for City Children." North American Review,
July December, 1896. Vol. 163, pp. 725.


FCC 1-20-56-wp-870






-2-


the value of curfews based on her work with boys on the lower East Side of New

York.: She declares ",..I have found that the habits of gambling, lying and

stealing were almost universal; but the late hours kept by the children on the

street is neither the only nor the chief cause of this state of things. There-

fore I cannot believe that if the curfew were in force it would lessen the crime

among children."2 She contends that if children are unhappy in their homes, no

law will keep them there and a curfew would be just another law for them to

exercise their ingenuity in breaking.

After the appearance of these articles no comments could be found on

curfews in the periodical literature until 1943. In that year the National Insti-

tute of Municipal Law Officers, an organization composeiof city attorneys from

throughout the United States, prepared a model ordinance on curfews for minors

and it was printed in the American City. This model curfew ordinance is re-

produced as Appendix # 1. War conditions and the rising tide of juvenile delin-

quency during those years seem to have been the factors percipitating the drafting

of this model curfew law.

The only comment on the curfew which could be located in a textbook

dealing with juvenile delinquency was a reference in Thrasher's, "The Gang".

The observation made is that "In spite of the curfew regulation of the ordinance

excluding minors from poolrooms...gang boys still manage to hang out in or before

poolrooms."

The greatest source of information about curfew laws is contained in

newspaper articles. A review of the New York Times Index for the period 1930-
5
1955 gives the following tabulation of articles appearing on the subject.

2 Buck, Winifred, "Objections to a Children's Curfew." North American Review,
January June, 1897. Vol. 164, pp. 381.

3 "Model Ordinance on Curfews for Minors." The American City, 59:89, June 1943.


4 Thrasher, Frederick M. The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927.

5 New York Times Index. 1930-1955

FCC-1-20-56-:p-871






-3-


1930 ----- Two
1931 ----- One
1930 192 --- None
1943 ----- Nine
1944 ----- Two
1945 ----- Two
1946 .---- One
1947 ----- None


1948 ----- Seven
1949 ----- One
1950 -----1951 ---- None
1952 ----- Four
1953 ----- Four
1954 ----- Seven
1955 ----- Six


The number of articles appearing in local newspapers throughout the country

during this same period is impossible to know. Most of the discussion of curfews

has taken place at the community level. The articles appearing in the New York

Times represented many cities throughout the nation and were not just confined to

New York State. When you consider the distribution of these articles for the

twenty-five year period it is interesting to note their tendency to cluster in

certain years. For example, 1943 has nine articles with none for the prior ten

years. Beginning in 1952 you again notice an increase in the number of news

items on the curfew. Does this "clustering" indicate fad behavior with respect

to a communities interest in the curfew? This would require further study. It

is not within the province of the present report to examine all the facets of

this subject.

With the rising interest in curfews on the part of the public in 1943,

the Survey Midmonthly magazine carried this statement in its July issue for that

year.


This statistic,


With juvenile delinquency increasing, many
cities are resurrecting old curfew laws or passing
new ordinances to keep children off the streets at
night. The American Municipal Association reports
that the number of curfew measures has increased
so greatly in the last six months that now 10 to 90%
of all cities in each6state have adopted this method
of controlling youth.

if valid, is very important. What was the basis for so many


6 "Curfew."


Survey Midmonthly, 79:203, July 1943.


Fcc-l-20-56-wp-872






-4-


municipalities deciding that the curfew would be useful in controlling youth?

Were these laws drafted with proper consideration for the rights of children and

their parents? These questions are still unanswered.

The final article on curfews, appearing in a national publication, was

in 1952. Several New York boroughs banded together and passed a uniform curfew

to "...give local law enforcement officers the authority to see that parents do

not permit their children to run loose on the streets at night. Violation of the

ordinance will result in charges against the parents."7 This was the last peri-

odical reference to be found on curfews.

Is it significant that not one study of the value and effectiveness of

curfew laws could be found in a professional scientific journal concerned with

juvenile delinquency?

Since the start of World War II, the public has become more and more

sensitized to the "problem" of delinquency. Communities throughout the nation are

constantly searching for a "tool" to bring the problem under control. The curfew

is apparently the most immediate device available to plug the leak in the dike

once the waters have started to flow through. Because of this, curfews are

usually enacted without preliminary study on the basis of an emotional reaction

of the citizenry to "do something" about juvenile crime. Their nature is gener-

ally retailatory. The edict is one growing out of agitation and irritation.

Correspondence with the United States Children's Bureau revealed that
8
they had little current information on the subject of curfew laws. Emphasizing

the importance of recognizing that the curfew is a negative approach and not a

substitute for wholesome activities which should be provided for children and

youth, William Sheridan, Chief of the Technical Aid Branch, says that you can't


7 "Villages Adopt Curfew Law." The American City, 67:103, March 1952.

8 Sheridan, William. Chief, Technical Aid Branch, Division of Juvenile Delin-
quency Service. United States Children's Bureau, Washington. Letter, February 9,


1955.

FCC-1-20-56-wp-873





-5-


expect to legislate responsibility into irresponsible parents. He contends that

the enactment of a curfew law will not meet the basic causative factors of delin-

quency but that"...in a community where delinquency has apparently gotten out of

control, a curfew may be a useful tool in regaining control of the situation."

Mr. Sheridan believes the following questions should be considered before

the enactment of such legislation.

Is it necessary?

Does the present juvenile court statute already
provide police with the power to take effective
action with respect to children who are loitering
late at night?

Do the other regulatory laws relating to the
administration of unescorted children provide
police with the power to act?

He feels that if the power is already provided for in other ordinances the

answer is not a curfew but better law enforcement. In commenting on the question

of effectiveness he wants to know"...what percentage of delinquent acts happen

after 9:00 P.M., which has generally been accepted as the hour for the curfew to

take effect". In one community, he points out, a study of school vandalism found

that most of the instances occurred on the weekend and during daylight hours.

Another study found that approximately 14% of the delinquent acts happened

after 9:00 P.M. His conclusion is that curfew enforcement may require more officers

and more patrol duty to be effective but"...If the curfew is enacted it should be

accompanied by constructive activities for those youth who have nothing to do but

loiter on street corners. If this is not done, the enactment of a curfew may

automatically result in driving youngsters into other forms of delinquency behind

closed doors."


FCC-1-23-56-eb-874




-6-

A few questions are raised by these statements. Although juvenile court

statutes a~nn ot.h:; orinances may provide t*": polic-e .ith "implied" power to

Question chil-r-n i n th--. lat- evenir7 hourss, isn't this "implied' authority

somewhat frowned upon by the police who want, for their own protection, a definite

ordinance or statute enabling them to act? Does it necessarily follow that when a

new ordinance is passed this automatically necessitates the hiring of additional

officers? In our modern society, with its many leisure time programs in the

schools, recreation, and churches, is the so called accepted curfew hour of 9:00

P.M. realistic? No studies could be found that attempt to answer these questions.

The pattern of living for our youth has changed radically over the past decade and

thinking about control of their behavior must accordingly change.

The most significant remark made by Mr. Sheridan in his letter was that

"...we have no information based on sound study as to the effectiveness of a

curfew law."

An unpublished article by Kathryn H. Welch in 1943 analyzes the curfew as a

desirable or undesirable measure. This article is reproduced as appendix # 2.

Her conclusion is "...the conditions under which a curfew would seem advisable are

rare...a curfew is not a desirable measure for children and young people."9 It is

recommended that this article be read in its entirety.

The area in which the curfew seems to draw its strongest support is in re-

lation to law enforcement. As a delinquency control mechanism it can be considered

a valuable aid to the police in checking the movements of youth as well as dis-

rupting the congregation of gangs. Although the police may benefit by such a law

there are several difficulties they face in enforceing its provisions. Parents at



9 Welch, Kathryn H. "The Curfew Is it a Desirable Measure." Unpublished
Article. United States Children's Bureau, Social Service Division. December 11,
1943.


FCC-1-23-56-eb-875





-7-


times are considerably disturbed if their children are stopped and questioned by

the police, especially if they have a legitimate reason for being out. The police

themselves often consider the enforcement of such an act secondary to other higher

priority duties. Then there is the difficult problem of determining the age of

children, especially of girls. Also, what are the best ways to provide for children

who are attending sanctioned social events?10 Situations such as these, which are

not adequately taken into consideration when drafting a curfew, often result in the

police neglecting to enforce the law. As a control over gang activities the cur-

few may prove very valuable and effective.

One of the most stinging denunciations of curfew laws appears in the 1953

report of the Juvenile Court for the State of Connecticut.

As representative of such measures springing from the
urge for action, there is the curfew which, since it admitted-
ly satisfies an understandable desire for forthright activity,
is reactivated periodically when a community's sense of urgency
compels some examination of its youth problem. Seldom does it
appear that in considering a curfew such a community makes
any factual study of what may or may not be expected from its
actual operation. From a purely historical point of view,
curfews were not intended to cure the habits and character
of criminals, but were designed primarily to protect medieval
cities from the threat of conflagration by demanding that the
open fires common to their houses be extinguished at a cer-
tain time. (See Appendix # 6). The emphasis was on the de-
fense of the community; any derivative impact on crime or the
criminal was coincidental and not by design. While in the
d'ys when wolves loped through the streets of Paris, such a
defensive measure was probably justified by the reality of
tie situation, for a modern community to emulate such a state
of siege by enacting a curfew is, it would appear, both to adver-
tize the final bankruptcy of its youth program, and to
dramatize the presumed helplessness of its parents. Even if
such unhappy implications can be surmounted, there should
certainly be extraordinary returns to justify the indis-
criminate repressiveness of the measure, and can a curfew
promise such results. 11


10 Sheridan, op.cit.

11 Annual Report. Juvenile Court for the State of Connecticut, 1953.


FCC-l-23-eb-876






-8-


It is to be remembered that a curfew cannot and does
not change a delinquent's personal character, attitudes, or
needs. When and if enforceable, it merely limits or circum-
scribes the scope of his operations. As a method, therefore,
of treating delinquency, it can only be effective to the de-
gree that delinquency is actually a disease of the night
season. Similarly, as an instrument of prevention, a curfew
offers a community no valid hope of better things unless it
can be established that the vulnerable hours for children are
really after 9:00 o'clock, the accepted curfew hour.

In view of the known results from past curfews and their
seeming inability to help for a reasonable period of time
any community's efforts in dealing with the problem, the
findings of the delinquency clock set forth on pages 12 and
13, cannot be held surprising...Since 86% of all delin-
quency acts take place before 9:00 o'clock, the meagerness
of the results which can be looked for from a curfew under
conditions of optimum enforcement are self-evident. Remem-
bering that only between 1 and 2% of Connecticut's chil-
dren are in trouble, and keeping in mind that only 14% of
this minute minority group have performed their delinquent
acts after the curfew hour, it can be seen that while a
curfew unquestionably represents overt and dramatic action,
the question remains, to what purpose? Once the limited
range of a curfew is acknowledged, can its radical dis-
ruption of the normal legitimate activities which most com-
munities provide for its youngsters be justified...

...Until the great areas in the study of human behavior
which now stand unmapped and unexplored have finally yielded
to man's persistent study of man, it is not only fair, but
wise and necessary to examine any measures which suggest
better things for our children, even if at first impression
they seem unsuited to the ends in view. (P.5,6,7,)

The premise upon which the foregoing statement is based is the fact that

only 14% of the delinquency in Connecticut occurs after the accepted curfew hour

of 9:00 P.M. The question then arises as to whether one can determine the value

and effectiveness of the curfew from juvenile court statistics alone? How many

cities in Connecticut have curfew laws? Have these cities been studied to deter-

mine whether any relationship exists between the number of offenses reported to

the juvenile court and the presence of a curfew ordinance? The assumption on one

hand is that a relationship exists between a curfew and the number of delinquent

acts committed by children after the curfew hour and on the other hand that


FCC-1-23-56-eb-877





-9-


keeping children off the streets at night has no value in delinquency control.

Neither of these two assumptions can be verified because of insufficient research

on the subject.

The City of Philadelphia passed a curfew in 1955 for those under 17 which

prohibits movement after 10:30 P.M. during weekdays and after midnight on Friday

and Saturday.12 This ordinance is reproduced as Appendix # 3. Its provisions are

somewhat unique in that it places a great deal of emphasis on the responsibility

of operators of establishments, catering to juveniles, to see to it that they do

not remain after the curfew hour, with penalties provided for owners not complying.

The ordinance was made effective for a one year period. A recent letter from

Abraham L. Freedman, City Solicitor for Philadelphia, comments that the ordinance

is about to expire and there is some question about whether it will be renewed. A

year probationary period to try out an ordinance may provide the information

necessary to determine whether it should be re-enacted.

While the Connecticut Juvenile Court Judges seem to be completely opposed to

curfew laws, the State of Arizona has just recently completed a report on its de-

linquency problem in which the curfew is recommended on a state-wide basis.13

Senate Bill # 31 was introduced in the Arizona State Legislature in 1955 calling far

a state-wide curfew for minors. This bill is reproduced as Appendix # 4. The

study committee recommended the state-wide curfew citing the need to keep juveniles

off the streets at unreasonable hours of the night and providing a means for

allowing the police to act in such matters. County curfews were recommended as

another approach, other than the state-wide curfew, which would enable


12 Philadelphia Curfew Ordinance. Bills Number 557 and 718, 1954

13 Report of Juvenile Delinquency Study Committee to Legislative Council.
State of Arizona. December, 1954.


FCC-1-23-56-eb-878





-10-


the smaller political subdivisions to determine its own needs. The county-wide

curfew suggestion seems to be more realistic. It would provide for a county-wide

law with the municipalities within the county then determining the need for city

ordinances of a more comprehensive nature. When you consider that in Dade County,

Florida their are 28 municipalities along with the unincorporated areas and that

these cities are contiguous to or within walking or riding distance of one another,

the fact that three of these cities have curfew laws is somewhat negated by a

youngster being able to cross the street, in many cases, and avoid the curfew. For

any city curfew ordinance to be wholly effective it relies to a great extent on

whether the bordering city has a complementary ordinance. This defect can only

be corrected by a county-wide curfew encompassing all of the communities within

its boundaries.

A minority report of the Arizona study committee declares that a state cur-

few would be unenforceable, and that it would not be needed in the smaller towns

and rural areas. They submitted the bill which would permit county boards of

supervisors to enforce county-wide curfews. The sub-committee on Education recom-

mended the state-wide curfew with two exceptions: One had to do with the age

level and the second eliminated the provision requiring parental permission "in

writing" for a child to be on the streets after curfew. The sub-committee on Home

and Church considered the state-wide curfew law as a"commendable" idea. The sub-

committee on Recreation and Employment further endorsed the state-wide curfew.

The following article by syndicated columnist Robert C. Ruark on the sub-

ject of curfews is one of the most far reaching proposals yet suggested. It is

reprinted in this report because of the writers positive conclusions about the
14
value of such a law.



14
Ruark, Robert. "There's No Harm in Curfews." Miami Herald. August 29, 1955.


FCC-Z-23O5~-eb-879









I see nothing particularly horrifying about the idea of
a nation-wide curfew for teen-agers, especially since from what
I hear lately juvenile delinquency is caused partially by lack
of sleep. Offhand I would say 10:00 o'clock is late enough
for any kid to be up on a school night, with midnight as a
maximum for Friday and Saturday.
This curfew has already been suggested in Connecticut to
apply to juvenile auto drivers, but it seems to me it would
work soundest in the big cities, where the young gangsters clot
the corners in savage knots, and swagger around running people
off sidewalks, and haunt the streets and parks for drunks to
roll and people to beat up for fun.
A youngster who might happen to work at night isn't hang-
ing around the saloon sections, anyhow, and one boy going to
or from work doesn't constitute a menace, especially if he has
in his possession a police pass.
It seems to me that in ny misunderstood, underprivileged
delinquent days, Nine P.M. was the official stayout time by
order of the head of the house and that this was relaxed to
11:00 on weekends, unless there was a big hop going on.
It also seems to me that I did not suffer unduly, and was
able to rack up vast amounts of sleep...

In this article you have a capsuled version of the present day thinking by

many people on the subject of curfews for children.

In concluding this section of the report it might be well to consider where

the rightful responsibility belongs for carrying out the intent of all curfews

laws, that of seeing that children are at home at a respectable hour at night. The

most successful curfew will be the one determined by parents with an understanding

on the part of the child as to why it is necessary. In a recent report conducted

by the Miami Herald, teenagers were asked to complete a questionnaire on eleven

items relating to their conduct. The results showed that most of those replying

had parents who insisted on a curfew hour.5 The time limit imposed, depended

upon the situation, according to this response. In answer to the specific question,

"Do Your Parents Enforce a Curfew?", 483 replied in the affirmative and 172 in the

negative. It would be naive to expect all parents to accept the responsibility of



15 Wardlow, Jean. "Miami Teenagers Aid Kefauver Committee.' Miami Herald.
November 15, 1955.


FCC-l-23-56-eb-880


A









W12-


regulating the movements of their children at night. If this ideal could be

realized there would be no need to concern oneself with a curfew imposed by

governmental decree. Because parents fail to assume this obligation the assigning

of this function to a governmental body through legislation becomes a feasable

alternative. How valuable and effective it is in practice remains a 1tequestion.


FCC-l-23-56-eb-881









BIBLIOGPAPHY


Annual Report. Juvenile Court for the State of Connecticut, 1953.


Buck, Winifred. "Objections to a Children's Curfew." North American Review,
January June, 1897. Vol. 164, pp. 381.


"Curfew." Survey Midmonthly, 79:203, July 1943.


"Model Ordinance on Curfew for Minors." The American City, 59:89, June, 1943.


New York Times Index. 1930 1955


Philadelphia Curfew Ordinance. Bills Number 557 and 718, 1954.


Report of Juvenile Delinquency Study Committee to Legislative Council.
State of Arizona. December, 1954.


Ruark, Robert. "There's No Harm in Curfews." Miami Herald.
August 29, 1955.


Sheridan, William. Chief, Technical Aid Branch, Division of Juvenile
Delinquency Service. United States Children's Bureau, Washington. Letter
February 9, 1955.


Thrasher, Frederick M. The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1927.


Townsend, John D., Mrs. "Curfew for City Children." North American Review,
July December, 1896. Vol. 163, pp. 725.


"Villages Adopt Curfew Law." The American City, 67:103, March 1952.


Wardlow, Jean. "Miami Teenagers Aid Kefauver Committee," Miami Herald.
November 15, 1955.


Welch, Kathryn H. "The Curfew Is it a Desirable Measure." Unpublished
Aritcle. United States Children's Bureau, Social Service Division.
December 11, 1943.

FCC-1-25-56-eb-881-A








FLORIDA'S CUPFEW LAWS


The present survey is limited to a consideration of curfew

ordinances now in effect in selected Florida municipalities. Infor-

mation on Florida Curfew Laws was obtained by the Questionnaire

Method. This questionnaire was sent to either the City Clerk, City

Attorney, City Manager, Mayor, or Police Chief in the respective

municipalities. It was directed to the person or persons who would

have easy access to the material requested. All opinions expressed

on these questionnaires are those of a single individual who occupies

a position in city government. Their opinions are not to be con-

strued as being representative of the citizenry as a whole, and the

inclusion of them in several parts of this report is accompanied by

a recognition of their limited use.

Questionnaires were sent to 260 Florida municipalities as listed

in the 1954 Directory of the Florida League of Municipalities. This

selection was made because of a belief that cities belonging to the

League would be most cooperative in a venture of this type. Each

city, in addition to filling in the questionnaire, was requested to

send a true copy of the curfew ordinance to the Florida Children's

Commission.

The following analysis of the Florida Curfew Laws was derived

from data and material supplied, either through completion of the

questionnaire or from the true copies of curfew ordinances, by 220

cities which cooperated in the survey. Forty cities failed to reply.

The questionnaire is reproduced as Appendix 5.




414.

FLORIDA MUNICIPALITIES CURFEW ORDINANCE PROVISIONS

(Listed According to Date Enacted)


CITY

BLOUNTSTOWN

PALMETTO

ZEPHYRHILLS

FT. LAUDERDALE

STARKE

ORMOND BEACH


KEY WEST

OPA LOCKA

VERO BEACH

FT. PIERCE

LAKE PARK

FT. MYERS

LAKE WORTH

PENSACOLA

NORTH MIAMI

CLEARWATER

GAINESVILLE

LONGWOOD

OKEECHOBEE

PASS-A-GRILLE

JACKSONVILLE

SANFORD

BELLE GLADE

NAPLES

FCC.1-24-56-eb-882


POP.*

2,118

4,103

1,826

36,328

2,944

500


26,433

5,271

4,746

13,502

489

13,195

11,777

43,479

10,734

15,581

26,861

717

1,849

1,000

204,517

11,935

7,219

1,465


ENACTED

1955

1955

1954

1953

1953

3.953


1952

1952

1952**

1952***

1951

1950

1949

1948****

1946

1945

1945

1945

1944

1944

1944



1943

1943
1943


AGE

Under 17

Under 17

Under 16

Under 18

Under 16

Under 14
14 17

Under 16

Under 17

Under 16

Under 16

Under 16

16 &Unaer

Under 16

Under 16

Under 16

Under 16

Under 18

Under 18

Under 16

Under 18

Under 18

Under 17

Under 18


PENALTIES
TIME (P.M.) PARENTS AND OTHERS

10:00


10:00

10:00

9:30

10:00

9:00
10:00

9:00

9:00

9:00

10:00

10:00

12:00 P.M.

10:00

11:00

12:00 P.M.

10:00

12:00 P.M.

10:00

11:00

9:30

10:00

11:00

12:00 P.M.


Under 17 10:00


$200.00 or 90 Days

$100.00

$200.00 or 90 Days











$100.00 or 30 Days

$10.00



$50.00 or 10 Days



$25.00 or 30 Days

$50.00 or 30 Days

$1C,00 or 10 Days

$5.00 or 5 Days



$100.00 or 30 Days





-15-


FLORIDA MUNICIPALITIES CURFEW ORDINANCE PROVISIONS


(Listed According to Date Enacted)


POP.* ENACTED


13,604 1943


AGE


TIME (P.M.)


Under 17 10:00


PENALTIES
PARENTS AND OTHERS


$100.00 or 30 Days


The following news article appeared in the Florida Municipal
Record, June 1955.

"Bradenton to Enforce Curfew Law With Courtesy and Tact"

Mayor Sterling Hall of Bradenton received the unanimous
approval of all Councilmen that the city's curfew law for
children under 17 be strictly enforced, "with courtesy and
tact," Chief Clyde Benton said the persons responsible for
destruction of flowers and plants in the city's nursery will
be arrested.


Chief Benton said the nursery attack
of picnic tables in Waterfront Park was a
to the jailing of 15 youths recently in a
gang burglaries and thefts.


and the burning
youthful reaction
cleanup of juvenile


The curfew ordinance, long on the city's book of laws,
but selfom used, makes it an offense for a child under the
age of 17 to be out in public without his parents or guard-
ians after 10:00 P.M. at night, and before 5:00 A.M. The
Chief of Police may issue special permits in cases of
necessity. The early rising of newspaper boys, was cited
as an example where a permit will be issued......


PORT ST. JOE

ST. AUGUSTINE

BROOKSVILLE

WINTER HAVEN


ORLANDO


COCOA


MARIANNA


TAMPA


DUNEDIN


2,752

13,555

1,818

8,605

52,367

4,245


"- 5,845


124,681

3,202


DeFUNIAK SPRINGS 3,077

GREEMCNE SPRINGS 3,291

FCC-l-24-56-eb-883


1943

1943

1943

1943

1943

1943

1943

1943

1943

1943

1943


Under 16 11:00


Under 17


10:15


Under 17 11:00

Under 17 10:30

Under 17 9:00

Under 17 11:00


Under 16


11:00


Under 17 10:00

Under 17 10:00

Under 17 9:15

Under 16 10:00


$100.00 or 30 Days

$100.00 or 30 Days

$100.00 or 30 Days

$100.00 or 60 Days



$250.00 or 60 Days

$100.00 or 90 Days

$100.00 or 30 Days

$100.00 or 10 Days

$100.00 or 30 Days

$25.00 or 30 Days


CITY


BRADENTON





-16.

FLORIDA MUNICIPALITIES CURFEW CRDINANCE PROVISIONS

(Listed According to Date Enacted)


CITY

HIALEAH

UMATILLA

LAKE WALES

ST. CLOUD

AVON PARK

LEESBURG

GULFPORT


POP.*

19,676

1,312

6,821

3,001

4,612

7,395

3,702


ENACTED

1943

1943

1943

1943

1943

1942

1937


AGE

Under 16

Under 16

Under 17

Under 18

Under 16

Under 17

Under 15


TIME (P.M.)

10:00

9:00

10:00 (EWT)

10:00

10:00

10:00

8:30 Winte
9:00 June-


PENALTIES
PARENTS AND OTHERS

$100.00 or 30 Days





$25.00 or 10 Days


r
Sept.


TARPON SPRINGS


BOYNTON


LANTANA

BONIFAY


SAFETY HARBOR

WEST PALM BEACH

LaBELLE

STUART

EAU GALLIE

NEW SMYRNA BEACH

LAKE CITY

MOORE HAVEN

BELLEVIEW

PINELLAS PARK


* --- Population


4,323


1933


2,542 1933


773

2,252


1931

1927


894 1927

43,162 1926

945 1926

2,912 1924

1,554 1921

775 1921

7,571 1912

636

595

2,924

(Incomplete Data

1950 U, S. Census


Under 14 8:00
9:00

Under 18 9:00
10:00

Under 14 9:00

10-17 Male 9:00
7:00

Under 16 10:00


School Days
Vacation $25.00 or 10 Days

Oct-May
June-Sept.

$10.00 or 10 Days

April-Oct.
Nov-March


Under 12 8:00

Under 12 10:30

Under 16 9:30 $25.00 or 5 Days

Under 18 9:00

Under 18 9:00

Under 16 99:00

Under 16 9:00 $25.00 or 10 Days

Under 17 10:00

9:00

From Last 3 Cities)

*** --- Re-enacted from 1928 Ordinance


** --- Re-enacted from 1921 Ordinance ** -- Re-enacted from 1943 Ordinance


mr


op


_ ___~ ___~ __~_


L





-17-


FZLOIDA MUNICIPALITIES CURFEW ORDINANCE PROVISIONS

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS FOUND IN CURFEW ORDINANCES

Unless with Parents, Guardians, or Adults

Having written permission of Parents or Chief or Police

Going to and from their place of employment, with a
.proper working certificate, if of school age.

Going tc and fr::m supervised school, church, or
recreational acriv;.ties.


SUMMARY



T, 57 MUNICIPALITIES IN FLORIDA OUT OF 2o0 SURVEYED HAVE CURFEW ORDINANCES

DATE E-ACTED

1912 ----- 1 1945 ----- 3
1921 ----- 2 1946 -----1
1924 ----- 1 1948 --- 1
1926 --- 2 1949 -- 1
1927 --.--12 1950--- 1
1931 ----- 1951 ----- 1
1933 ----- 2 1952 ---- 4
937 ----- 1 1953 -----3
192 ----- 1 1954 ----- 1
1943 ----- 20 1955 ----- 2
1944 ---- 3

Not Known ---- 3

AGE LIMITS

Under 18 ------- 10
Under 17 --------19
Under 16 --------22
Under 15 ------ 1
Under 14 ------ 2
Under 12 -------- 2
Not Known ------- 1

(Note: The 1951 Florida Juvenile Court Act
gave the Juvenile Court exclusive
jurisdiction over all boys and girls
who have not reached their 17th
birthday.)


FCC-1-24-56-eb-885






-18-


(Note 2: Many of the Florida curfew ordinances
have penalty provisions for the child
to be determined by city courts. These
fines and penalties are unenforceable
for those under 17, because of the ex-
clusive jurisdiction given the juvenile
court under the 1951 act.)

TIME CURFEW IN FORCE

12:00 Midnight ------- 4 cities

11:00 P.M. ---------- 7

10:30 P.M. ------------- 3

10:15 P.M. ------------- 1

10:00 P.M. -------------23

9:30 P.M. ---------- 3

9:15 P.M. WW-------" 1

9:00 P.M. .------------14

8:00 P.M. ------------- 1


II, RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE

The complete questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix 1.

An analysis of the responses to questions 3, 4, 5, and 6 namely:

Is this Curfew Law Strictly Enforced by the Police Department?

Has this Curfew Law Contributed to a Decrease in the Number
of Juvenile Violations that Occur During the Evening Hours?

Have the Children in Your Community Come to Accept the Curfew
Law?

Do the Parents Cooperate with the Police in Enforceing the
Curfew Law?
reveal that twenty respondents from the following cities; Key West, Opa

Locka, Lake Park, Ft. Myers, Lake Worth, North Miami, Clearwater, Pass-A-

Grille, Bradenton, Port St. Joe, Brooksville, Winter Haven, Marianna, Tampa,


FCC-1-24-56-eb-886






-19-


G6cen Cove Spr:is, Hialeah, St. Cloud, Guli'ort, Per and Arcadia ansaored

all four in the affirmative. These responses imply that the curfew ordinance

is being effectively enforced. How accurate these responses are can only be

determinined by a more complete study of the individual cities. This was not

one of the objectives of the present survey.


III, COMMENTS NOTED ON QUESTIONNAIRES CITIES WITH CURFEW LAWS

CITY OF BELLE GLADE --- Passed an ordinance in 1943 requiring minors to be at
their home or place of residence after twelve o'clock
unless they are accompanied by their parents or guard-
ian. The passage of this ordinance was not brought
about by juvenile violations that occurred during the
evening hours. I have been advised by the Chief of
Police that it has not been necessary to strictly en-
force this ordinance.

AVON PARK ------- This Curfew law was passed during the war years,
January 26, 1943. At that time the fire siren blew at
10:00 P.M. and the law was strictly enforced. It has
not been enforced in many years. We have very little
juvenile delinquency, and no vandalism at all.

PINELLAS PARK ------- We wish to advise you that the Town of Pinellas Park
does exercise and enforce a 9:00 P.M. curfew. However,
we do not have an ordinance to this effect. it is
accomplished by the cooperation of the parents and
the police department of the t-wn. This curfew
originated nn a motion made and carried by the town
commission several years ago.

PALTTO -------------We have a curfew ordinance requiring minors to be off
the streets by 7:00 P.M., but this old ordinance is
not enforced. However, our city police cooperate with
the Bradenton Police and the Manatee County Sheriff's
office in enforceinga 10:00 P.M. curfew hour.

FORT ERS ------------ I am not mindful, however, of any efforts during recent
years to enforce the curfew by the city police.

LAKE WOlTH ------------ We use it when necessary. Most of our teenagers and
children behave.


FCC-l-24-56-eb-887






-20-


PASS-A-GRILLE --


Is a very small town and the children and young people
are unaware that there is an ordinance such as is en-
closed. I have worked in the office here since 1945
and in those years not more than three times has it
been necessary to call a group of youngsters and their
parents into the police station for conferences. For
the up to 12 group all parties and get together are
well supervised and the teenagers either have super-
vised parties or go to St. Petersburg for recreation.
Since it is a small town, all the children are known
to the Police Chief and his relief officers, and it is
more or less personal supervision that is given for
those out late at night.


ST. AUGUSTINE ---------This ordinance was adopted during war time and was
fairly well enforced during the war years, but not
since then.

ORLANDO -------------- This was a war time measure. It is not strictly en-
forced now.


GREEN COVE SPRINGS ---


This city has a curfew ordinance but it has not been
enforced for the past few years. The county and city
law officials decided there was not any current need
for enforcement.


UMATILLA-------------- This ordinance was enacted during the war. It is not
enforced at all now.


GULFPORT -------------


An old ordinance which through error was not included
in the codification of ordinances. The siren is blown
every evening at 9:00 P.M. anid police do have the
children go home.


WEST PALM BEACH----- The curfew ordinance is not enforced. The children
probably do not know it exists.

STUART----------------To my knowledge this ordinance has not been strictly
enforced during the past twenty or more years. Con-
sideration was recently given to amending this
ordinance to conform more to the modern age, but
opposition was encountered and the matter was dropped.

NEW SYMRNA BEACH------- The curfew is not considered necessary as we have no
particular trouble with the children.


ALACHUA ---------------


The curfew ordinance has not been enforced for the
past twenty-five years to my knowledge. We have a
policeman on duty all night and he has been able to
cope with any situation that arises. However, our
children have been very cooperative and our policeman
has no trouble at all with them. I believe the
ability of the policeman has a great deal to do with
the conduct of the children, and to try to enforce a
curfew law on children would do more harm than good.


FCCm-1125-56-eb-88O





-21-


ARCADIA--------- ---


Actually we have no problem at this time, according to
our Mayor. He states no complaints whatever, though
of course the law is not enforced as written, for the
reason perhaps that it is a little obsolete. We have
a youth center where the youngsters congregate Friday
and Saturday nights and their activities are supervised.


IV. COMMENTS NOTED ON QUESTIONNAIRES CITIES WITHOUT A CURFEW LAWS

BRONSON------------- -We have not had any need for a curfew law in this town
as our children do not create any problems.

WELAKA------------ We had one, but repealed it five years ago. Neither
children or parents would cooperate.

BOCA RATON ------------We are at the present time in the process of re-codi-
fying all ordinances and adding modern ones where none
exist. If there is such an ordinance in existence
recommended by your commission, we would be pleased to
have a copy of it forwarded to us.


PALATKA -----------



HIGH SPRINGS--------


The City of Palatka is making a study regarding the
curfew ordinance, but to date nothing definite has
been determined.

We have no curfew ordinance. We have very little
trouble here in such matters. Naturally at times a
minor incident occurs, but police handle it without
much trouble. Our police are ordered not to allow
minors to loaf on the streets at night, after midnight,
occasionally, they send boys home, and no protest is
made by parents. In fact parents tell the police to
send their boys home after 12.


At times there has been some thought to passing a cur-
few ordinance here, but after discussing the matter
with citizens, civic clubs, churches, we find there is
no definite or major sentiment for the ordinance, so
none has been passed. We have very little difficulty
with our children.

LAKE HAMILTON ----------We do have a Youth Center for teenagers which meets
every Tuesday night. This takes care of any delin-
quency.


OLDSMAR ---------------


More effective than any curfew law would be more and
stricter parental control. The parents of today need
a refresher course in child education, to remember
their own childhood days and the lessons they learned
then and apply some of the things they did learn to
the upbringing of their own children.


FCC-1-25-56-eb-889






-22--


The parent, the school and the church have each a
responsibility in molding the life and character of
our children and if each would work at this, the need'
for curfew laws would not be with us.

DANIA ------- ------ There was some talk of one during the last war, but
nothing definite was ever done about it.

KEYSTONE HEIGHTS----..----Juvenile Delinquency is at a minimum here.

LARGO ---------M M We find it difficult to enforce a curfew law and not
very practical. However, our town does sponsor a
Youth Center in cooperation with various civic groups
which we find more effective than a curfew.


V. COMMENTS ON CURFEW ORDINANCES HEARD IN A DISCUSSION GROUP ON LEGISLATION
REGARDING JUVENILE DELINQUENCY --- JANUARY 5, 1955 --- WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.

Chief of Police ------------- Lake Worth, Florida

"It's a good ordinance that was passed

during the war. The problem is to enforce

it. We got it behind us and we do use it

occasionally"




Chief of Police ----.---- West Palm Beach, Florida

"I tried to enforce the curfew but the

curfew has never been enforced because the

parents don't want it enforced. As far as

thb curfew goes the strict curfew has Lbeen:

working well .in some Northern cities."


FCC-1-25-56-eb-890










APPENDIX I

NIMLO MODEL CURFEW ORDINANCE

National Institute of Municipal Law Officers


(EDIOTR'S NOTE: See NIMLO Report 99, "Municipal Curfew
for Minors -- Model Ordinance Annotated"; People V. Walton
70 Cal. App. (2d) 862, 161 P. (2d) 498.)


AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE PRESENCE OF MINORS UNDER THE AGE OF -- YEARS IN
PUBLIC STREET AND OTHER PLACES BETWEEN CERTAIN HOURS: DEFINING DUTIES OF
PARENTS OR OTHERS IN CARE OF MINORS: PROVIDING FOR ARREST AND PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.


WHEREAS, An emergency exists by reason of wartime conditions now pre-
vailing which have overtaxed the law enforcement agencies of the City of
..................... because of influxes of population, over-crowded living
conditions, the presence of numerous strangers and transients, transportation
irregularities, special efforts required to prevent threatened sabotage,
blackouts, darkened streets and public places, and the like; and

WEEREAS, Due to these wartime conditions now prevailing juvenile crimi-
nal delinquency has so increased in the City of ................... as to
become a menace to the preservation of public peace, safety, health, morals
and welfare;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ...........

Section 7-':01. Loitering of Minors Prohibited. It shall be unlawful
for any minor under the age of ..... years to loiter, idle, wander, stroll,
or play in or upon the public streets, highways, roads, alleys, parks, play-
grounds, wharves, docks, or other public grounds, public places and public
buildings, places of amusement and entertainment, vacant lots or other unsuper-
vised places, between the hours of ...... P.M. and ...... A.M. of the following
day, official city time, from ...... to ......, and between the hours of P.M.
(Month)
...... P.M. and ...... A.M. of the following day,official city time, from

...... to ......; Provided, however, that the provisions of this Section
(Month) (Month)
do not apply to a minor accompanied by his or her parent, guardian, or other
adult person having the care and custody of the minor, or where the minor is
upon an emergency errand or legitimate business directed by his or her parent,
guardian, or other adult person having the care and custody of the minor.

Each violation of the provisions of this Section shall constitute a
separate offense.


FCC-1-25-56-eb-892







L APPENDIX I p.2


Section 7-402. Responsibility of Parents. It shall be unlawful for the
parent, guardian, or other adult person having the care and custody of a
minor under the age of ...... years to knowingly permit such minor to loiter,
idle, wander, stroll, or play in or upon the public streets, highways, roads,
alleys, parks, playgrounds, wharves, docks, or other public grounds, public
places and public buildings, places of amusement and entertainment, vacant
lots or other unsupervised places, between the hours of P.M. and ...... A.M.
of the following day, official city time; from ...... to ......, and between
(Month) (Month
the hours of ...... P.M. and ...... A.M. of the following day, official city
time, from ...... to ......; Provided, however, that the provisions of this
(Month) (Month)
Section do not apply when the minor is accompanied by his or her parent,
guardian, or other adult person having the care and custody of the minor, or
where the minor is upon an emergency errand or legitimate business directed
by his or her parent, guardian, or other adult person having the care and
custody of the minor.

Each violation of the provisions of this Section shall constitute a
separate offense.

Section 7-403. Penalties. Any minor violating the provisions of Section
7-401 shall be dealt with in accordance with Juvenile Court law and procedure.
Any parent, guardian, or other adult person having the care and custody of a
minor violating Section 7-402 shall be fined not less than ...... dollars,
nor more than ...... dollars, or confined in jail not more than ...... days,
or punished by both said fine and imprisonment for each offense.

Section 7-404. Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances. All existing ordi-
nances of the City of ........ are hereby repealed insofar as they may be
inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance.

Section 7-405. Separability of Provisions. It is the intention of the
City Council that each separate provision of this ordinance shall be deemed
independent of all other provisions herein, and it is further the intention
of the City Council that if any provisions of this ordinance be declared in-
valid, all other provisions thereof shall remain valid and enforceable.

Section 7-466. Finding of Emergency. This ordinance is passed as an
emergency measure, and the City Council does by the vote by which this
ordinance is passed, hereby declare that an emergency exists, which makes it
imperative that this ordinance shall become effective forthwith, the nature
of said emergency being as follows: Wartime conditions have overtaxed the
law enforcement agencies of the City of ................... so that it is
necessary to preserve the public peace, safety, health, morals and welfare
by restricting the presence of minors in the streets and other public places
for the purpose of curtailing juvenile delinquency by making this ordinance
effective immediately.

Adopted this .............day of ............, 19......


FCC-1-25-56-eb-893









APPENDIX II

THE CURFEW IS IT A DESIRABLE MEASURE?


By Kathryn H. Welch
Social Service Division
Children's Bureau
U. S. Department of Labor
Washington 25, D. C.


December 11, 1943



The curfew, prohibiting the presence of children under certain ages on
the streets and in other public places between specific hours, has received
considerable public attention as a measure for controlling juvenile delin-
quency. Since communities throughout the country are seeking ways to reduce
delinquency, it is important to evaluate the curfew as a method of dealing
with this problem and to consider whether it is a desirable measure.

The curfew is concerned primarily with the problem presented by chil-
dren and young people who roam the streets and loiter in other public places -
especially about questionable places of amusement at unreasonable hours.
General wartime conditions have intensified this problem, which has become
particularly acute in some war-congested communities. Essential services
for children and young people have been overtaxed by increased population or
weakened by turn-over and shortage of personnel. The weakening of home life,
brought about by the absence of fathers and the employment of mothers, has
placed many children in a position of choosing their own activities without
consistent guidance and supervision. The restlessness of youth and their
natural love of adventure, both stimulated by wartime excitement, also loom
large as contributing factors.

It is clear that the health and general welfare of children and young
people are endangered when they are permitted to roam or loiter in public
places at any time but especially late at night or early in the morning.
At such hours, when vice and immorality are at their height, young people
are exposed to influences that are obviously harmful to their welfare. The
young girl especially is in danger of being led into sex delinquency, which
often results in her becoming a victim of general disease and prostitution.
Therefore, a community in planning action to cope with juvenile delinquency
must provide measures to protect and safeguard young people who loiter in
such places at unreasonable hours.

The effectiveness of the curfew in safeguarding young people during
curfew hours and in reducing the amount of delinquent behavior on their part
is questionable. The curfew will not prevent undesirable activities behind
closed doors and in "hang-outs" but may even promote them in some instances.


FCC-1-25-56-eb-894








APPENDIX II p.2


It may drive young people bent on engaging in undesirable behavior to the
outskirts of the city, where control and supervision may be more difficult.
Furthermore, the curfew does not reduce the number of delinquent acts com-
mitted during the hours when it is not in effect.

The curfew, designed to deal with a relatively small gruup affects
alike all children and -young people ina community the majority of whom are
adjusting satisfactorily to the strains of wartime conditions and are not
loitering in public places at all hours. The reasons for such young persons
being in public places at late hours may differ greatly from those of the
boys and girls who habitually loiter there. Nevertheless, when a curfew is in
effect, all young persons out during curfew hours must be approached and
questioned by the police, even when they are on legitimate business, for which,
however, provision is usually made in curfew ordinances.

The majority of children and young people have parents or other re-
sponsible adults who are taking seriously their obligations as guardians and
who are dealing wisely with their children. The assumption that the curfew
makes the task of parents easier raises the question as to whether parents,
by and large, wish to depend upon police authorities to enforce requirements
upon their children or whether they prefer to continue to use their own dis-
cretion in determining how late at night their children may remain out. The
justification for public authorities to assume parental responsibility with
respect to all young persons in the community because of factors involving a
relatively small number is seriously questioned. All parents, however, need
the help of the community in promoting the wholesome growth and development
of their children. The community can give this help by providing basic ser-
vices essential to the well-being of all its children. If adequate provision
is made for such essentials, the problem of young people in public places at
late hours would be so reduced that the question of a curfew would probably not
arise. Furthermore, it is evident that the curfew cannot as a single measure
deal effectively with the problem.

The curfew in itself is negative in character and does not provide a
sound approach to the problems of children and young people. It does not
meet the fundamental need of youth for satisfactory home life and constructive
recreational activity. It does not take the place of the wise guidance and
supervision of parents, so essential to the satisfactory adjustment of the
adolescent. Nor does it provide opportunity for wholesome leisure-time ex-
periences necessary to promote social development and stimulate interest in
-constructive and worth-while activities.

The possible interference of the curfew with constructive group meet-
ings of youth and other wholesome experiences should be considered. Club
groups, under organized direction, and social gatherings such as dances,
private parties, and socials sponsored by churches and schools, may be re-
stricted. Other provision for entertainment or programs for youth may also
be hindered. Since the extension and strengthening of such activities is
essential in coping with juvenile delinquency, the curfew may defeat its own
objective of dealing with the problem.


FCC-1-26-56-eb-895








APPENDIX II p. 3


The point is often made that the curfew assist the police officer.
Although a curfew may reduce the number of young people found loitering in
public places, the question may be raised as to whether the curfew lightens
the load for the police. The curfew is difficult to enforce and adds
appreciably to the duties of the police. It is easy to evade and in some
instances may challenge the ingenuity of youngsters to "get-by" and thus
suggest disregard for law.

Many police departments provide special protection to young persons
found under circumstances that indicate danger to their welfare. In some
cities a curfew ordinance is not considered necessary as authority for a
police officer to confer with a minor and his parents or even to take a minor
to his home. Such service is an accepted part of police administration and
is being given in some cities by policewomen. If this service were extended
and strengthened, a curfew would obviously be superflu ous.

The conditions under which a curfew would seem advisable are rare. In
communities in which law and order are temporarily disturbed and the control
of community life is completely out of hand, a curfew may be advisable until
such time as order can be restored. However, unless a community situation
has gone completely beyond control and cannot be put in order without drastic
action, a curfew is not a desirable measure for children and young people.

Although the police are faced with the immediate problem of children
and young people on the streets, the responsibility for action to meet the
problem rests squarely upon the community its parents, public officials,
religious and civic groups, public and private social-work agencies, indi-
vidual leaders and private citizens, and all groups interested in children
and concerned about increased opportunity for all of them.

There is no quick, sudden, or dramatic method of dealing with the
problem of juvenile delinquency. Its solution lies only in adequate com-
uunity provision for services and programs that promote wholesome growth
and development of children and youth such as secure home life, educational
opportunity, and constructive recreational activity. Only through providing
these opportunities can a community fulfill its fundamental obligations to its
children.

A community planning a program for coping with juvenile delinquency may
find helpful suggestions in a recent publication of the Children's Bureau
entitled "Controlling Juvenile Delinquency; A Community Program" (Publication
No. 301), single copies of which will be sent free on request.


FCC-1-26-56-eb-896








APPENDIX III


(Bills Nos. 557 and 718--1954)

AN ORDINANCE


To regulate the presence of minors under the age of seventeen years in public
places and in private establishments between certain hours; defining duties
and responsibilities of parents and proprietors of establishments; and pro-
viding penalties forviolations.

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA HEREBY ORDAINS:


Section 1. Legislative Findings.

The Council of the City of Philadelphia finds as follows:

(a) An emergency has been created by a substantial increase in the
number and in the seriousness of crimes committed by minors against persons
and property within the City of Philadelphia, and this has created a menace
to the preservation of public peace, safety, health, morals, and welfare;

(b) The increase in juvenile delinquency has been caused in part by
the large number of minors who are permitted to remain in public places and
in certain establishments during night hours without adult supervision;

(c) The problem of juvenile delinquency can be reduced by regulating
the hours during which minors may remain in public plac-s and in certain
establishments without adult supervision, and by imposing certain duties and
responsibilities upon the parents or other adult persons who have care and
custody of minors.

Section 2. Definitions.

(a) "Establishment" means any privately owned place of business carried
on for a profit or any place of amusement or entertainment to which the pub-
lic is invited;

(b) "Minor" means any person under the age of seventeen (17)years;

(c) "Official City Time" means Eastern Standard Time except from the
last Sunday in April to the last Sunday in September, it shall be Eastern
Daylight Saving Time;

(d) "Operator" means any individual, firm, association, partnership, or
corporation operating, managing, or conducting any establishment; and when-
ever used in any clause prescribing a penalty the term "operator" as applied
to associations or partnerships hall include the members or partners thereof
and as applied to corporations, shall include the officers thereof;


FCC-1-26-56-eb-897






"APPENDIX III p.2


(e) "Parent" means any natural parent of a minor, a guardian, or any
adult person, twenty-one years of age or over, responsible for the care and
custody of a minor;

(f) "Public Place" means any public street, highway, road, alley, park,
playground,wharf, dock, public building or vacant lot;

(g) "Remain" means to loiter, idle, wander, stroll, or play in or upon.

Section 3. Unlawful Conduct of Minors.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any minor to remain in or upon any public
place or any establishment between the hours of ten-thirty (10:30) o'clock
P.M. and six (6) o'clock A.M. of the following day, official City time, ex-
cept that on Fridays and Saturdays the hours shall be from twelve (12) o'clock
midnight to six (6) o'clock A.M.;

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any minor accom-
panied by a parent, or to a minor upon an errand or other legitimate business
directed by such minor's parent, or to any minor who is engaged in gainful
lawful employment during the curfew hours;

(c) Each violation of the provisions of this section shall constitute
a separate offense.

Section 4. Unlawful Conduct of Parents.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any parent knowingly to permit any minor to
remain in or upon any public place or any establishment between the hours of
ten-thirty (10:30) o'clock P.M. and six (6) o'clock A.M. of the following day,
official City time, except that on Fridays and Saturdays the hours shall be
from twelve (12) o'clock midnight to six (6) o'clock A.M.;

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any parent who
accompanies a minor or to a parent who directs a minor upon an errand or
other legitimate business or to any parent of a minor engaged in gainful
lawful employment during the curfew hours;

(c) Each violation of the provisions of this section shall constitute a
separate offense.

Section 5. Unlawful Conduct of Owners or Operators of Establishments.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any operator of an establishment or their
agents or employees knowingly to permit any minor to remain upon the premises
of said establishment between the hours of ten-thirty (10:30) o'clock P.M.
and six (6) o'clock A.M. of the following day, official City time, except
that on Fridays and Saturdays the hours shall be from twelve (12) o'clock
midnight to six (6) o'clock A.M.;

(b) Each violation of the provisions of this section shall constitute
a separate offense.


FCC-1-26-5%-eb-898






APPENDIX III p.3



Section 6. Enforcement and Penalties.

(a) Any police officer who finds a minor violating the provisions of
this ordinance, shall obtain information from such minor as to his name and
address, age, and the name of his parent or parents. The minor shall there-
upon be instructed to proceed to his home forthwith. The information obtained
from the minor shall be forwarded to the Juvenile Aid Bureau, which shall
cause a written notice to be mailed to the parent or parents of the minor, ad-
vising of the violation of this ordinance;

(b) Any parent who shall permit a minor to violate the provisions of
this ordinance after having received notice of a prior violation shall be
fined not less than five (5) dollars nor more than one hundred (100) dollars
for each violation, together with judgement of imprisonment not exceeding ten
days if any fine imposed, together with costs, is not paid within ten days of
the date of imposition thereof;

(c) Any operator of an establishment and any agents or employees of
any operator who shall violate the provisions of this ordinance shall be
fined not less than twenty-five (25) dollars nor more than three hundred (300)
dollars for each violation, together with judgement of imprisonment not
exceeding thirty days if any fine imposed, together with costs, is not paid
within ten days of the date of imposition thereof.

Section 7. Severability.

The provisions of this ordinance are severable and if any provision
shall be held illegal, invalid or unconstitutional, such illegality, invalidity
or unconstitutionality shall not affect or impair any of the remaining pro-
visions. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Council that this
ordinance would have been adopted if such illegal, invalid or unconsti-
tutional provision had not been included herein.

Section 8. Effective Period.

This ordinance shall remain in effect until December 31, 1955.


FCC-1-26-56-eb-899







APPENDIX IV


STATE OF ARIZONA
SENATE
TWENTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE
FIRST REGULAR SESSION


S. B. 31


Introduced by Mr. Simer and Mr. Corbett


AN ACT


RELATING TO JUVENILES; PROVIDING A CURFEW; PRO-
HIBITING LOITERING, AND PRESCRIBING DUTY OF
PARENT OR GUARDIAN.



BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA:


Section 1.
requires:


Definitions. In this Act, unless the conteKt otherwise


1. "Living quarters" includes the room customarily used for sleeping
and the house, apartment, dormitory, flat, and the immediate premises
surrounding such place.

2. "Juvenile" means a person under the age of eighteen years.


Section 2. Curfew Established. It is unlawful for a juvenile to be
absent from his living quarters between the hours of ll:CO P.M. and
4:00 A.M., but such juvenile may be absent from his living quarters
until the hour of twelve midnight on Friday and Saturday evenings,
and on the evening immediately preceding any legal holiday.


Section 3. Exceptions. The provisions of section 2 shall not apply
to a juvenile tho:

1. Is going to or returning from officially recognized or approved
educational or vocational classes;

2. is accompanied by his parent, guardian, teacher, or other adult
having his care, custody or supervision;


FCC-1-27-56-eb-900


S t






i 4-


APPENDIX V


CURFEW SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

1955


Dear Sir:

The Florida Children's Commission is making a preliminary survey of
curfew laws in Florida cities. This survey was requested by one of our
County Children's Committees for the purpose of considering the feasability
on en-acting a similar ordinance in their community.

We are interested in having the following questions answered:

1. WHAT IS THE POPULATION OF YOUR CITY?

2. DOES YOUR CITY HAVE A CURFEW LAW RELATING TO CHILDREN?

YES NO

3. IS THIS CUIFEW LAW STRICTLY ENFORCED BY THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT? _YES NO.

4. HAS THIS CURFEW LAW CONTRIBUTED TO A DECREASE IN TJ
NUMBER OF JUVENILE VIOLATIONS THAT OCCUR DURING THE EVENING
HOURS? YES NO.

5. HAVE THE CHILDREN IN YOUR COMMUNITY COME TO ACCEPT THE
CURFEW LAW? YES NO.

6. DO THE PARENTS COOPERATE WITH THE POLICE IN ENFORCING
TEE CURFEW LAW? YES NO.

7. IS A COPY OF THIS CURFEW LAW AVAILABLE FOR OUR INSPECTION?
YES NO. (If Yes, please send a copy
or tell us how we can obtain nne.)

Please return this letter with the questions answered in the enclosed
envelope as soon as possible. If you have any evaluations to make on the
effectiveness of your local ordinance please write it on the back ofthis
letter.

Thank you for your cooperation in this survey.


FCC .l-27-56-eb-892











APPENDIX VI


CURFEW



A signal, usually the tolling of a bell at a fixed hour, requiring

the inhabitants of a place to extinguish or cover their lights and fires

and go to bed; it was an enforced regulation throughout Europe in the

Middle Ages, and originated as a precaution against fire. The curfew still

survives in some parts of the United States as a means of announcing the

lateness of the hour, as a warning to minors to go indoors, or as a police

measure against the further nocturnal continuance of such public activities

as drinking at bars, and congregating at places of entertainment. During

World War II, a variety of nocturnal curfews was put into effect, both in

America and Europe, as a means of conserving coal, oil, and other materials

necessary to the war, and as a precaution against air raids; in enemy-held

territory, the curfew was used to clear the streets as a protection against

sabotage and underground activities.....







THE NEW FUNK & WAGNALLS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol. 9 -- pp. 3360-61

Unicorn Publishers, Inc., New York


FCC-1-26-56-eb-893




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs