WRTV 6 is reporting this evening that federal Judge John Tinder has today thrown out the State's revised curfew law.
Recall that earlier this year, in Hodkins v. Peterson, Mayor of Indianapolis (1/22/04 USCA 7th Cir.) the 7th Circuit ruled, in the words of the Indianapolis Star, that "that Indiana's curfew law was unconstitutional because it could dissuade children from exercising their First Amendment rights for fear of being arrested." (see 3/18/04 ILB entry). That ruling reversed an earlier decision of Judge Tinder, upholdng Indiana's curfew law (IC 31-37-3-2 and 3.5).
This session of the Indiana General Assembly amended the curfew law, and suit was filed by the ACLU to test the revised version. This time, Judge Tinder reportedly rejected the revised law (note - the opinion is not yet available, I am writing solely on the basis of the WRTV report).
But I will say, there should be no surprises here, for anyone who has reviewed the 7th Circuit opinion against the revisions made by the 2004 General Assembly. See this lengthy Indiana Law Blog entry I posted July 5th for more information.
[Immediate update] Whoa! Here it is: Nancy Hodgkins v. Bart Peterson. And here is the "Preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of Indiana's juvenie curfew law."
Judge Tinder's conclusion, after reviewing decisions from other jurisdictions, is that:
Review of these decisions supports the conclusion that the Indiana curfew law is not narrowly tailored enough to serve the State’s interests while respecting parental rights. Because the defenses to Indiana’s curfew law are less broad than those in these other cases, the curfew law’s impingement on parental rights is greater here. While the curfew law’s defenses do give parents some flexibility in deciding whether their children can stay out in public during curfew hours, it nonetheless impinges on their right to make that decision in many other situations likely to occur. For example, Indiana’s curfew law precludes a parent from deciding that her child may do something as innocent as pick up a prescription drug at the 24-hour pharmacy down the street, gaze at stars while sitting on the sidewalk adjacent to the family home, or walk the dog around the block during curfew hours. * * *Judge Tinder, at the end of the 34-page opinion, writes:In sum, the court has determined that the State has a compelling interest in reducing juvenile crime and victimization, and has assumed it has an interest in
supporting and assisting parents in their child rearing roles. However, the curfew law has not been shown to be drafted sufficiently narrowly to serve those interests.Therefore, the court concludes that Indiana’s juvenile curfew law is unconstitutional in that it infringes on the fundamental right of parents to direct the care, custody and control of their children. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction will be GRANTED. * * *
Because the court has concluded that the curfew law violates the substantive due process rights of parents, the Plaintiffs can demonstrate no adequate remedy at law, irreparable harm, and that the balance of harms favors an injunction and an injunction will serve the public interest. Accordingly, the court will GRANT the motion for preliminary injunction.
Once again, at least while this injunction is in effect, Indiana will not have a valid curfew law to enforce. Some may express concern about what effects may follow the loss of governmental control of minors’ late night activities. It is doubtful that the lack of a statutory curfew will be disastrous, though. As stated in an entry in a prior case in the series of cases litigating Indiana’s curfew law:Posted by Marcia Oddi at July 23, 2004 06:17 PM[T]his ruling should not be construed as an invitation to all Hoosier youth to run wild through the nights. Indiana law enforcement authorities retain full authority to enforce the substantive laws that prohibit juvenile delinquency, such as vandalism, trespass, underage alcohol consumption, drug use, theft and so on. Indiana parents also retain the right to set and enforce rules within the family unit--including curfews--for their children, and common sense dictates that they will.Hodgkins v. Goldsmith, IP99-1528-C-T/G, 2000 WL 892964, at *2 (S.D. Ind. July 3, 2000).