Judge Lunn defeated in election
November 4th, 2008
Judge Robert Lunn, the author of the minority (pro-curfew)
opinion in the curfew case, has lost re-election to the
NYS Supreme Court. He had publicly taken credit for
not only authoring the minority opinion, but for winning
over the other judge who joined him in it.
Robert Lunn was heavily favored to get the most votes going
into the election, yet he placed last out of four, for the
two-seat race. Another Republican, Elma Bellini, came
in second and so won election, so it does not appear there
was an anti-Republican backlash. Something must have
happened to Robert Lunn's fortunes at the last
minute. I wonder what that could have been.
Curfew law overturned!
October 10th, 2008
The NYS Supreme Court, 4th Appellate Division,
has declared
the Rochester curfew law unconsitutional. In particular,
"It is ADJUDGED and DECLARED that chapter 45 of the Code
of the City of Rochester is unconstitutional under the United
States and New York Constitutions,
and defendants are enjoined from enforcing chapter 45 of the Code of
the City of Rochester."
Despite the clear language ordering the City not to continue
enforcing the law, Mayor Duffy told the news media that the
law would still be in effect pending appeal. This is not
surprising -- with regard to the curfew, Duffy also demonstrated
a lack of respect for the democratic process, when he attacked
the City Council for exercising its legitimate functions of
oversight. We shall see what happens, if a juvenile is
actually arrested.
Judge Green's majority opinion states:
"We hold that the ordinance is inconsistent with general laws
of the State and with the New York and United States
Constitutions...
"We agree with plaintiffs that the ordinance infringes on
plaintiff son's fundamental right of free movement because it
affects the right of plaintiff son
'with parental consent to walk the streets,
move about at will, meet in public with
friends, and leave his house[] when [he]
pleases. This right to movement is a vital
component of life in an open society, both
for juveniles and adults'
(Ramos, 353 F3d at 172; see Johnson v City of Opelousas, 658
F2d 1065, 1072; Waters v Berry, 711 F Supp 1125, 1134)...
"Thus, because the City has failed to demonstrate that the
ordinance is substantially related to an important
governmental interest, we hold that it is unconstitutional
under the Equal Protection Clauses of the New York and
United States Constitutions.
"We further hold that the ordinance imposes an
unconstitutional burden on the First Amendment rights of
juveniles... By subjecting juveniles to arrest merely for
being in a public place during curfew hours, the ordinance
forcefully and significantly discourages protected
expression...
"Finally, we agree with plaintiffs that the ordinance
interferes with plaintiff father's right to direct and
control the upbringing of plaintiff son...
"We therefore conclude that the ordinance is
unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the
fundamental substantive due process right of plaintiff
father to rear his child without undue governmental
interference (see Nunez, 114 F3d at 951; see generally
Ginsberg, 390 US at 639)."
Download the whole report
here.
Curfew law extended for a year
September 18th, 2008
Tonight the City Council again extended the temporary
curfew law. This time, the extension passed
5-3. Carla Palumbo was absent, but indicated that she
would have voted yes. Carolee Conklin, Elaine Spaull,
and Lovely Warren voted against the extension.
All three are first-term City Council
members. Carolee was elected in 2005, while Elaine and
Lovely were elected in 2007. City Council seats are
held for four years.
I believe that the political tide is indeed
turning. There is hopeful news on other fronts as
well. It appears likely the curfew law will never be
made permanent.
Curfew law extended for a month
August 14th, 2008
Tonight, the City Council again extended the curfew law, but
only for a month. The reason for the short duration is
so that newly elected City Council members have time to review
the curfew law.
The extension passed 6-3. Carolee Conklin, Elaine Spaull,
and Dana Miller voted against the extension. The
political tide appears to be turning.
Curfew law extended for another year
August 21st, 2007
Tonight the City Council renewed the curfew bill for another
year. The extension passed 8-1, with Carolee Conklin
again voting against it. Thank you, Carolee.
RIT curfew report released
July 1st, 2007
The City has released its
report
on the curfew extension. Prepared by the Center for
Public Safety Initiatives at RIT, it covers the period from
December 12th, 2006 to March 5th, 2007.
93% of juveniles stopped for curfew violations were black or
hispanic; only 7% were white. The majority were arrested
within one mile of their home; three-quarters were arrested
within two miles of home.
The report also states that "most juveniles appear to be
engaged in fairly innocuous behavior (e.g. walking home from
the store or a friend's house) while violating the curfew."
The few times criminal activity was uncovered "the police were
actively following up on public complaints" and the arrests
would have happened anyway, with or without a curfew.
No surprises here.
Curfew lawsuit dismissed, goes to appeal
February 16th, 2007
The lawsuit filed by an anonymous juvenile plaintiff against the
City's curfew has been dismissed. Naturally, it will be
appealed, to the NYS Appellate Court, Fourth Division.
While dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit the judge nonetheless
felt compelled to note:
"This popular belief, embraced by legislators of various municipalities
- both large and small is often in conflict with the reality of the
effectiveness of these ordinances. Curfew laws are said to provide
legislators with the ability to project an image of being for law and
order and of being tough on crime. However, a growing body of
evidence gained from the study of the effectiveness of these laws
'fails to support the argument that curfews reduce crime and criminal
victimization' committed by and upon youthful citizens."
[The judge's quotation within the quotation is from Kenneth Adams in
his book "The Effectiveness of Juvenile Curfews at Crime Prevention".]
So the judge basically agreed with us but said he didn't feel he had
enough evidence to legally find in favor of the plaintiff. Of
course, the evidence against the curfew will only grow, because the
curfew wont work.
I encourage everyone to download the
court decision and read
it, especially pages 5 and 6. Also, please check out the City's
Curfew Pilot Report, which
of course says:
"This report has failed to establish a relationship between the
implementation of the curfew and improved public safety, as measured by
reported crime, juvenile victimization, and arrest. This is a
finding which is consistent with other evaluations of curfews
throughout the country."
We told you so. Of course, the report lamely concludes that 90
days is not enough time for an effective study. Fortunately,
the City Council will be requesting further reports.
Curfew law extended (again) for another eight months
January 16th, 2007
The City Council again voted to extend the curfew, this time for
eight months. As usual, the vote was 8-1 with Councilwoman
Carolee Conklin voting aganist the curfew. However, the
Council also unanimously voted to request concrete statistics
on the curfew's effectiveness -- to be supplied by the
administration on May 15th, and July 15th. Based on these
measurements of progress, the Council will decide whether to
continue the curfew.
An independent study has already concluded that the curfew is
not effective. It will be interesting to see how the
administration presents their statisics. We of the
Coalition to Stop the Curfew know that there will be no
progress because curfews don't work.
Curfew law extended another two months
November 30th, 2006
Tonight the City Council renewed the curfew bill for another
two months. Mayor Duffy contended that recent violence
(all involving adults in the daytime) must be addressed
by locking up children at night.
City Council members criticized the Duffy administration for
not providing data on the effectiveness of the curfew. Several
Councilmembers also criticized the administration for getting
the legislation to them less than an hour before the vote,
giving them no chance to read it.
Councilwoman Carolee Conklin voted against the curfew again,
and Councilman Adam McFadden indicated he would not support
this particular curfew law indefinitely. That leaves
open the question of what a good curfew law is. We of
the Coalition to Stop the Curfew know that it is a law which
allows the police to provide help to troubled youth without
making that help mandatory.
Child sues City over curfew law
November 2nd, 2006
Concerned for his Constitutional rights, a child has, anonymously,
filed suit against the City of Rochester to have the curfew law
overturned. We in the Coalition to Stop the Curfew support
his efforts.
Curfew bill released during Council session, and passed!
August 22nd, 2006
Unfortunately, the Mayor was able to use a parliamentary
maneuver to release the curfew bill from committee during
a full City Council meeting. To circumvent the
Public Safety Committee, Duffy had his supporter Lois Geiss
release the bill from committee, in her capacity as
President of the City Council. Adam McFadden managed
to introduce a few changes moderating the curfew, but nothing
that addressed the fundamental flaws in the Mayor's proposal.
The curfew passed with no discussion. Only one City
Council member voted against the curfew -- Carolee
Conklin. Again, I urge you to demonstrate your
support for Carolee Conklin.
From his public comments, Mayor Duffy does not seem to
have much respect for the balance of power. He
criticized the City Council for asking questions about
how he planned to implement the bill. That's a
proper legislative function and it's disturbing that the
Mayor doesn't seem to understand that.
Stay tuned. The law as passed is a 90-day trial
curfew. It's not over yet, not by a long shot.
Curfew bill held in committee again
August 18th, 2006
The Public Safety Committee of the Rochester City Council has
decided to hold the curfew bill in committee
again. Hopefully, this means a curfew will not be
adopted this year. It would likely be re-introduced in
May or June of next year, should that happen.
Public Safety Committee holds public hearing, invites clergy to speak
August 9th, 2006
Tonight the Public Safety Committee held another hearing, this
one specifically to get the input of clergy. The meeting
was about evenly divided between proponents and opponents of
the curfew.
David Ahl and Christopher Edes both submitted alternative curfew
proposals which removed the repressive aspects of the Mayor's
proposal. They have cross-endorsed each others'
proposals.
We remain committed to working with the City Council to create
legislation which will help at-risk youth without criminalizing
our children. We received positive responses from Adam
McFadden and Dana Miller regarding these proposals, both of
whom serve on the Public Safety Committee.
While Adam McFadden has, as noted below, been an early public
supporter of the curfew, a more complete picture is now
emerging. Without Adam and his principled objections to
the Mayor's plan, the curfew bill would already be law.
While he may still end up supporting a curfew law that we
cannot accept, for the moment his reasonable nature and
willingness to serve the whole of the public has served our
ends as well. Thank you Adam.
Carolee Conklin comes out against the curfew
August 1st, 2006
Today local political activist Chris Edes, representing the
Coalition to Stop the Curfew, met with City Council member
Carolee Conklin. She is opposed to the curfew in its
current form, but may support a curfew based on the
"Minneapolis model". The current proposal is the
Mayor's.
Carolee also mentioned that Councilperson McFadden is dubious
of the Mayor's plan, but supports the "Minneapolis model".
We know that Adam McFadden has been the curfew's most
visible proponent in the media. If he is now wavering,
we're in a good position indeed.
Carolee Conklin is the first Councilperson to come out against
the curfew. She deserves our support for that. If
you want to e-mail her and tell her how pleased you are with
her position, her email address is:
Carolee.Conklin@cityofrochester.gov
Chris also gave Carolee a free no-curfew pin.
City Council holds curfew bill in committee
July 31st, 2006
Tonight the Public Safety Committee of the Rochester City Council
decided NOT to go ahead with proposed curfew legislation, but
rather to hold it in committee. This is only a delay, but
it is a hard-won delay. The Committee was clearly surprised
by the number of people who came to speak against the curfew, and
by the intensity of their opposition.
Now is our time to act, while the Council is undecided. We
must engage in a well-reasoned and passionate campaign to prevent
any further such legislation from being enacted.
Strong opposition to curfew at public meeting
July 27th, 2006
Opponents of the curfew outnumbered supporters at the recent
public meeting of the City Council's Public Safety Committee.
As well as a number of individuals, groups such as the
American Civil Liberties Union, the International Socialist
Organization, and the Coalition to Stop the Curfew were also
represented.
The committee members were on the defensive from the beginning.
They repeatedly felt it necessary to explain that their
intentions were good and they meant no harm by their
actions. It looks like the curfew may not pass as
easily as its supporters might hope.
Curfew proposed for the City of Rochester
July 22nd, 2006
A 90-day pilot curfew law has been proposed to the Rochester
City Council by Mayor Robert Duffy. It would make it
illegal for anyone under 18 years old to be outside from
11pm to 6am. Four police officers, working in teams of
two, would patrol for violators. Those caught would
be taken to the Hillside Family of Agencies center on East
Main Street. The program is expected to cost the City
$60,000.
Exceptions would be made if:
1. The minor is with a parent, guardian, or other
responsible adult.
2. The minor is engaged in lawful employment, or going to
or returning from their place of employment.
3. The minor is attending or returning home from a school,
religious, or other recreational activity sponsored by a
public entity or civic organization.
4. The minor is involved in interstate travel.
5. The minor is on an errand at the specific direction
of a parent or guardian.
6. The minor is exercising rights protected by the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution, or Article 1
of the New York State Constitution.
The last two exceptions make it virtually impossible
to enforce the law. The only result is to waste the
City's valuable resources.