LAKE OSWEGO, Ore. (AP) - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging the constitutionality of the curfew law in this affluent Portland suburb.

The ACLU said it has won similar lawsuits in three other states and while details of those curfew laws varied, they had the same constitutional defects it says exist in the Lake Oswego ordinance.

Attorney David Silverman, working pro bono, said every society strikes a balance by giving authorities the tools they need, but the Lake Oswego curfew goes too far, opening the possibility for racial profiling and other problems.

Five students are plaintiffs. One, Paul Trompke, said it should be a parent's decision whether a minor can be out at night, and the ordinance overlaps laws that give police the tools they need.

Trompke and others said they should not be detained only because of their age.

"We're targeted because we are young," said student Hanna Piazza.

None of the students at Wednesday's news conference said they had been detained for curfew violations but some said they knew others who had. Last year Lake Oswego police invoked the law 19 times.

The lawsuit claims the ordinance interferes with the right of parental control and the plaintiffs' right to move freely in public places subject to parental control.

It claims the ordinance violates the rights of people under 18 to due process, equal protection and freedom of expression "because it punishes them simply for being in a public place during curfew hours, even with parental permission or at the direction of their parents."

Lake Oswego's ordinance, based on state law and passed in the 1980s, generally bars anyone under 18 from being in any public place between 9:15 p.m. and 6 a.m. Hours are expanded in some cases on weekends and during summer months.

Exceptions are made if the minor is accompanied by a parent or an adult designated by a parent, or if he or she is engaged in entertainment, night school, or employment requiring presence in a public place during curfew hours.

David Fidanque, the executive director of the Oregon ACLU, said the "entertainment" exemption is unconstitutionally vague. "Entertaining themselves? Other people?" he asked.

Depending on the outcome of this case, the students said, they might take on county and state curfews.

They said they approached the city of Lake Oswego, which was willing to consider some changes to the law but did not want to deal with what the students' said are constitutional issues.

"Our goal is to get rid of the curfew in Lake Oswego," Trompke said.

He said the idea has wide support at the school, and other plaintiffs noted he had just been elected class president.

Fidanque said the Oregon ACLU has wanted to bring such a case for some time "and found the right set of plaintiffs here in Lake Oswego."

The students are in a Political Action Seminar class at Lake Oswego High School. The teacher, Gerrit Koepping, said other class members have taken on such projects as raising money to dig a well in Tanzania and to send 500 books to military members in Iraq.

Mayor Judie Hammerstad said she had invited the students to work with the city's youth council on the ordinance, but the students said the council wanted only "to tinker with the language."

By suing, they are learning about conflict and litigation, she said, adding, "I am very disappointed."

Source: KATU.com

What do you guys think?

I think the curfew laws are stupid. I know there are curfews in place here (I think anyone under 18 isn't supposed to be out after midnight) but no one follows them, and it doesn't stop anyone from getting in trouble. It should definitely be the parents' choice.

Noone should have a curfew... however, If it's 2 am and the cop comes across a group of kids, the cop should have every right to see what they are up to and analyze them for suspicious behavior, or even search them.

Personally, the reason I and many people find Lake Oswego to be such a desirable place to live is because we are known to have some of the strictest laws in Oregon. Very little crime is in Lake Oswego and it is made-up of mostly wealthy families. But when you go in Lake Oswego it looks like and feels like Mayberry. Part of this feel is due to these laws. Honestly, I don't have a big problem with the curfew laws.

People who are under the age of 18 are not granted the same rights as those 18 and older because we tend to make poor, impulsive decisions and lack maturity. Curfew is yet another restriction placed on those under 18. And typically when these poor and immature decisions are being made, they are usually late at night. This is why curfew measures are necessary for those who are under 18.

If teenagers who are doing no wrong after curfew but get pulled over by the police, do have the right to explain to the police why they were out past curfew. There are several valid reasons teenagers can use. And sure the word, “entertainment”, is vague, but if it were any more specific, wouldn’t it even more-so limit the activities allowed after curfew?

Curfew laws are there for a good reason. However, these students and the ACLU want to abolish it all together, not work towards making the language of the law better and more reasonable.

If the ACLU wins the case, Lake Oswego will fall back on Oregon’s state curfew laws. Which is why the ACLU should fight the State of Oregon not Lake Oswego.

I am not always opposed to curfews but I think that 9:15pm is quite early.

I am not always opposed to curfews but I think that 9:15pm is quite early.
All business signs have to be on the ground in Lake Oswego because they are more aesthetically pleasing to the human eye. :lolhit:

I think they might have a hard time, especially with such an early time, unless they can demonstrate that they were having a problem with crazy youths.

All business signs have to be on the ground in Lake Oswego because they are more aesthetically pleasing to the human eye. :lolhit:

Oh, one of those suburbs where you're not allowed to hang your clothes outside to dry or have your garbage cans where someone might see them. :)

Oh, one of those suburbs where you're not allowed to hang your clothes outside to dry or have your garbage cans where someone might see them. :)
Basically. Pretty sure our nickname is, "Lake No-Negro" :eek: :eek:

I think midnight is a pretty reasonable curfew for those under 18, but 9:15 is extremely early.

Not that I follow the curfew anyways.

I think midnight is a pretty reasonable curfew for those under 18, but 9:15 is extremely early.

Not that I follow the curfew anyways.
9:15 is for those under the age of 14, isn't it?

I believe 10:15 is for those 14+.

Could be wrong.

9:15 is for those under the age of 14, isn't it?

I believe 10:15 is for those 14+.

Could be wrong.

The article just said 9:15.
What you just said sounds more reasonable.

Even 10:15 is unreasonable. My parents let me out to see a 10:15 movie and then sit in front of the theater waiting for them when I was like 12.

And then there's cosmic bowling from 10:30 to 1 am, I used to do that in middle school. We almost got in trouble once when we were outside the bowling waiting for my friend's mom at like 12:45 and the cops stopped and started questioning us.

Even 10:15 is unreasonable. My parents let me out to see a 10:15 movie and then sit in front of the theater waiting for them when I was like 12.

And then there's cosmic bowling from 10:30 to 1 am, I used to do that in middle school. We almost got in trouble once when we were outside the bowling waiting for my friend's mom at like 12:45 and the cops stopped and started questioning us.

well, alot more goes on outside of bowling alleys than "waiting for your mom", reguardless of your age, especially these days...

i'd say the cop was right to at least question you...

well, alot more goes on outside of bowling alleys than "waiting for your mom", reguardless of your age, especially these days...

i'd say the cop was right to at least question you...
I guess so, but I was only 12 years old. We weren't doing anything except sitting there afraid that we were going to get killed (I used to live in a place that was not the best neighborhood ever...). Maybe the cops should've gone after the 18-20 year old guys who were lurking around probably with guns and drugs instead of questioning three twelve year old girls.

Even 10:15 is unreasonable. My parents let me out to see a 10:15 movie and then sit in front of the theater waiting for them when I was like 12.

And then there's cosmic bowling from 10:30 to 1 am, I used to do that in middle school. We almost got in trouble once when we were outside the bowling waiting for my friend's mom at like 12:45 and the cops stopped and started questioning us.
The time slot is different for the weekend. It is increased to midnight.

I'm all in favor of strict curfews. I'm also in favor of breaking them.

If you're not smart enough to dodge a few cops then you don't deserve to be out smoking pot late at night.

If you are -- party on, Garth. :drinktoth

I'm all in favor of strict curfews. I'm also in favor of breaking them.

If you're not smart enough to dodge a few cops then you don't deserve to be out smoking pot late at night.

If you are -- party on, Garth. :drinktoth
Good post sedan. That's really the point I'm trying to make, in my roundabout way. I don't mind curfew laws and I also don't mind breaking them, because I can get away with it.

The ACLU is dumb. They love to sitck their nose where it does not belong.

They love to tell business they can't have a Nativity scene, but the will

allow muslim displays.

As far as I am concerned, if the people vote in a law, the ACLU should

but out.

Well I am against curfew laws. I think it should be up to the parent. I personally think that I would not want my 17 year old past 12 on a Friday or Saturday night but for it to be a law. I don't know aren't there more important things for the police to do like catch murders and rapist?

I'm seventeen and my parents let me stay out with my friends because they know that my friends are mostly responsible adults, and above all, my parents are good parents and they know what's best for me better than some stupid law.

Unfortunately, curfews are necessary in today's society mainly because too many parents now days don't give a rat's ass what their kids are out doing, nor do they care what time they are out doing it. And that's all I have to say about that.

We have been having problems with 13 & 14 yr olds out joyriding in stolen cars, after midnight. Additional teens have been caught vandalizing autos and mail boxes.
Then there are the seven, 17 yr old, high school students, that were just arrested, in Houston, I think, for armed home invasions.
All of which points to the NEED for additional curfews. Teens have no business being out after mid-night, without a parent or guardian.

When I started driving my insurance rates were higher because I am male.
NY started a deposit bottle law several years ago because some people littered.
We are all judged based on the actions of the worst of our peers.

If these kids don't like the curfew law, they should put pressure on their irresponsible peers, not the lawmakers who must react to them.

They love to tell business they can't have a Nativity scene, but the will

allow muslim displays.
Proof? And what constitutes a "Muslim display"?
As far as I am concerned, if the people vote in a law, the ACLU should

but out.
Yes, that pesky constitution means nothing, right sisko?

I'm seventeen and my parents let me stay out with my friends because they know that my friends are mostly responsible adults, and above all, my parents are good parents and they know what's best for me better than some stupid law.
We have curfews because your situation is not omnipresent.

If these kids don't like the curfew law, they should put pressure on their irresponsible peers, not the lawmakers who must react to them.
While you might've felt like a morally upright person suggesting this, it does not even hint at practicality.

This is one of those times I find myself in complete agreement with Overdose. Overdose is obviously quite popular in Lake Oswego. Just look at the pictures he posts. If he can see the reasonableness of the curfew others should be able to also.

DarkFantasy, in her post, gave a good argument why there should be curfews even though she was trying to argue against them. She mentioned three twelve year old girls sitting alone, waiting for their parents, while being afraid of the eithteen year olds who were lurking in the vicinity. Twelve year old do not belong out alone that late at night for any reason.

Curfews serve two purposes, to protect society against unruly youngsters who usually are most unruly late at night and to protect youngsters against predators who also are most active at night. If a curfew is leveled against all youngsters evenly and does not just target on race or group it is perfectly legal.

Who decides what is constitutional and what is not? Do the judges decide?


Proof? And what constitutes a "Muslim display"?

Yes, that pesky constitution means nothing, right sisko?

If a curfew is leveled against all youngsters evenly and does not just target on race or group it is perfectly legal.
People under 18 aren't allowed to drink, vote and do many other things. This is typically because those under 18 lack maturity and tend to make poor choices, due to brain development and life experience. And a curfew is put in place to make it even harder for teens to make poor choices, late at night where those choices tend to occur.

The funny thing is, if the teenager has a valid reason, like having a job or was at a sporting event, they are let go.

And the reality is, I've broken curfew many times and have done illegal things after curfew. But knowing curfew laws, I've made sure I've been in safe places and that I'm NOT driving in a car with someone. This is mostly because I'm afraid of getting pulled over for curfew. It forces teens to be safer when they do bad things. ;)

Anyway. I typically support the ACLU, and I hate that people consider them "liberal" when they have defended the likes of Rush Limbaugh. But in this case I disagree with them.

Curfews serve two purposes, to protect society against unruly youngsters who usually are most unruly late at night and to protect youngsters against predators who also are most active at night. If a curfew is leveled against all youngsters evenly and does not just target on race or group it is perfectly legal.
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. I don't want the government making draconian laws to "protect" people; that isn't its job. I don't want the government telling parents how to do their jobs, either. Protecting children falls to parents. Not the government.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. I don't want the government making draconian laws to "protect" people; that isn't its job. I don't want the government telling parents how to do their jobs, either. Protecting children falls to parents. Not the government.
It is the government's job to protect its people. Do you think we should get rid of our military? Because if the government is allowed to protect us against other countries, they are sure allowed to protect us inside our borders.

Plus, parents can't be everywhere and do everything at once. And to expect them to is illogical. That's why the government lends a helping hand. And if the teen is doing nothing wrong, such as being at a friend's house to watch a movie, they are let go.

It is the government's job to protect its people. Do you think we should get rid of our military? Because if the government is allowed to protect us against other countries, they are sure allowed to protect us inside our borders.
You misconstrue me. I don't want the government protecting me by telling me not to do things that don't harm anyone else. The government should protect only by protecting my rights, not by limiting them.

You misconstrue me. I don't want the government protecting me by telling me not to do things that don't harm anyone else. The government should protect only by protecting my rights, not by limiting them.
All people under 18 have limited rights.

Do you feel we should give them all the rights 18+ and or 21+ people have?

Who decides what is constitutional and what is not? Do the judges decide?
That is the point of the judiciary branch. What do you think the Supreme Court does with their time?

Now, show me the proof I asked for.

Frogger, I was not arguing against curfews. I think curfew laws are stupid because I believe they don't help anything, but I have no problems with curfew laws being in place. I'm rarely out after midnight anyways, and if I am it's always with someone over 21 (or at least 18) who my parents have approved.

All people under 18 have limited rights.

Do you feel we should give them all the rights 18+ and or 21+ people have?
No, I don't, but this is not a valid argument. I'm saying that it's unnecessary and an overreach of the government to tell children when they cannot be outside their house. That's the job of the parents.

Incidentally, I support lowering the drinking age to 18, 13 if their parents are around, by the by.

No, I don't, but this is not a valid argument. I'm saying that it's unnecessary and an overreach of the government to tell children when they cannot be outside their house. That's the job of the parents.
By-and-large parents don't do their jobs these days.

Plus, if a parent allows a kid to do something after hours and it is LEGAL, they don't get in trouble for curfew.

Plus, if a parent allows a kid to do something after hours and it is LEGAL, they don't get in trouble for curfew.
Depends where you are. In Maryland I believe that you can get in trouble for it if you're not with someone over 21 or at work or a school/church function. Even if you are doing nothing illegal they will still put you in the back of the cop car and bring you home and probably give you a fine if it's a mean cop.

Depends where you are. In Maryland I believe that you can get in trouble for it if you're not with someone over 21 or at work or a school/church function. Even if you are doing nothing illegal they will still put you in the back of the cop car and bring you home and probably give you a fine if it's a mean cop.
I think the language of curfews could be better. But I don't think they should be abolished.

I think the language of curfews could be better. But I don't think they should be abolished.
I agree.

You misconstrue me. I don't want the government protecting me by telling me not to do things that don't harm anyone else.
I think these laws exist because of what teenage boys do to other people's property after certain hours.

(And I learned on another thread that respect for other people's property is more important than love of country.)

If the boys are going to break the law by vandalizing others' property, who says they'd follow the curfew laws? And if the cops can't catch 'em vandalizing, who says the cops will catch 'em out after midnight?

I don't have anything against curfew laws, I just don't think they make much difference at all.

Some of thodays judges read into the constitution. They read things that were never intended to be there.

As far as the proof you asked for, I remember the story from a couple of years ago. I'll try to dig it up, but I can't promise I'll be able to?

Would you say you are a fan of the ACLU? (Just curious)


That is the point of the judiciary branch. What do you think the Supreme Court does with their time?

Now, show me the proof I asked for.

It gives to police somehing more that they can prosucute with.

It's just one more step.


If the boys are going to break the law by vandalizing others' property, who says they'd follow the curfew laws? And if the cops can't catch 'em vandalizing, who says the cops will catch 'em out after midnight?

I don't have anything against curfew laws, I just don't think they make much difference at all.

If the boys are going to break the law by vandalizing others' property, who says they'd follow the curfew laws? And if the cops can't catch 'em vandalizing, who says the cops will catch 'em out after midnight?

I don't have anything against curfew laws, I just don't think they make much difference at all.

Under such logic ALL laws are worthless, and will just be ignored by most people. I just cannot accept that.

Would you say you are a fan of the ACLU? (Just curious)
I am. And they even defend people like Rush Limbaugh! Ekkkkk!

But in this case I disagree with them.

Under such logic ALL laws are worthless, and will just be ignored by most people. I just cannot accept that.
Not true. I am a 17 year old and I know a few people my age. It is my experience that most of them break laws like the curfew laws and underage smoking laws, but they do not generally burglarize houses or murder people.

Not true. I am a 17 year old and I know a few people my age. It is my experience that most of them break laws like the curfew laws and underage smoking laws, but they do not generally burglarize houses or murder people.
Even I broke the driving curfew once when I was 17. 17 year olds aren't supposed to drive after 1, I was out around 2 once. I've also broken the don't drink until you're 21 law on a few occasions. It happens.

I am. And they even defend people like Rush Limbaugh! Ekkkkk! Occasionally they'll defend someone like Rush or Oliver North and some will use that to say they're not liberal.

But saying that it is wrong for a DA to illegally take someone's medical records is a far cry from their normal defense of criminals (such as evidence being thrown out because the criminal information was written on the wrong type of warrant).

Occasionally they'll defend someone like Rush or Oliver North and some will use that to say they're not liberal.

But saying that it is wrong for a DA to illegally take someone's medical records is a far cry from their normal defense of criminals (such as evidence being thrown out because the criminal information was written on the wrong type of warrant).
No, they defend things that they feel are violating people's rights. They are an un-bias organization, who is given a "liberal" label by people who aren't educated on the ACLU.

No, they defend things that they feel are violating people's rights. They are an un-bias organization, who is given a "liberal" label by people who aren't educated on the ACLU.
What you're saying is true. But what they consider constitutional isn't always so clear cut (if it were they would never have to go to trial).
So there is quite a bit of room for discretion on their part as to what cases they choose to take on.

So I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the cases that they (choose to) deal with tend to favor the left's view of "right" more than mine.

No, they defend things that they feel are violating people's rights. They are an un-bias organization, who is given a "liberal" label by people who aren't educated on the ACLU.
I disagree with you; the ACLU is a liberal organization that sometimes picks genuinely ugly right-wing types to defend (such as the KKK). The reasons they do this on occasion is subject to interpretation.

The only problem I have with what they do is that they try to elevate themselves above the herd, when they are just as political as anyone.

What you're saying is true. But what they consider constitutional isn't always so clear cut (if it were they would never have to go to trial).
So there is quite a bit of room for discretion on their part as to what cases they choose to take on.

So I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the cases that they (choose to) deal with tend to favor the left's view of "right" more than mine.
I'm a libertarian, I have nothing to do with the "left", and I have an ACLU membership card for which I donated money in order to get.

What you're saying is true. But what they consider constitutional isn't always so clear cut (if it were they would never have to go to trial).
So there is quite a bit of room for discretion on their part as to what cases they choose to take on.

So I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the cases that they (choose to) deal with tend to favor the left's view of "right" more than mine.
I never said what they consider constitutional is clear cut. Clearly, I disagree with them on the issue of curfew.

And I don't think they favor left views what-so-ever, so when you try and say they are liberal I take offense to that.

I never said what they consider constitutional is clear cut. Clearly, I disagree with them on the issue of curfew.

And I don't think they favor left views what-so-ever, so when you try and say they are liberal I take offense to that.

I guess it is in the eye of the beholder and what they want to see. I prefer a realistic view of things.

I guess it is in the eye of the beholder and what they want to see. I prefer a realistic view of things.
:lolhit:

The ACLU is dumb. They love to sitck their nose where it does not belong.

Yes, damn that e-ville ACLU......sticking up for people's rights.

They must be some sort of cumm-ya-nissts.

</sarcasm> :rolleyes:

They love to tell business they can't have a Nativity scene, but the will allow muslim displays.

Bull shit.

I challenge you to post documentation of one instance of the ACLU trying to forbid a business from having a nativity scene. (not holding my breath)

As far as I am concerned, if the people vote in a law, the ACLU should but out.

The *people* in some locales might try to pass a law that takes away other people's rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But that's ok with you, eh? ""Screw any rights the citizens of the U.S. might possess, if some group in power in one community passes a law that abridges those rights.""

THAT is what your position on this boils down to. I don't believe you're thinking this one through very well.

I'm a libertarian, I have nothing to do with the "left", and I have an ACLU membership card for which I donated money in order to get.Oh.

And I don't think they favor left views what-so-ever, so when you try and say they are liberal I take offense to that.You shouldn't be offended by that.

Curfew should be 11 or 12 for 14-17. However being outside after curfew should only mean that the cops have a right to stop and question you, that's it.

How about the cops taking the kids home? No tickets, no crapola, just a ride?

Sure, if they agree...

Curfew should be 11 or 12 for 14-17. However being outside after curfew should only mean that the cops have a right to stop and question you, that's it.
I agree.

I would hate to have to be home at 11. I'm in college and most of my friends are over 21. If I go to a party the party sure as hell doesn't end at 11 pm. Then again unless I'm going home (and then my curfew is midnight) I just spend the night there. So I suppose it's very, very rare for me to be out in public after midnight anyways.

You misconstrue me. I don't want the government protecting me by telling me not to do things that don't harm anyone else.


Borg, there is a difference between the government protecting adults from themselves and protecting children from themselves. Children do not have the same ability to reason or to recognize dangerous situations. The same can be said for teenagers. That is why teenagers have restricted driver's licenses, can't purchase alcohol or cigarettes, etc..

There was a study that concluded that teenagers do not access risk very well. That is why younger people usually make better Marines.


You misconstrue me. I don't want the government protecting me by telling me not to do things that don't harm anyone else.


Borg, there is a difference between the government protecting adults from themselves and protecting children from themselves. Children do not have the same ability to reason or to recognize dangerous situations. The same can be said for teenagers. That is why teenagers have restricted driver's licenses, can't purchase alcohol or cigarettes, etc..

I think you mean "assess", sisko. But yes, I think that's true. I've sometimes made silly decisions about which I kind of wondered later. "Why on earth did I do that?"

Actually usually I'm drunk when I make those kinds of decisions so maybe it's different...

I guess it is in the eye of the beholder and what they want to see. I prefer a realistic view of things.

Riiiiight.

If this were true, you'd be happy to come on down to visit, This, if only to unburden yourself of your wild-assed and completely wrong assumptions about me and learn, you know, the reality of things.

:rolleyes: