Sunnyside Council adopts juvenile curfew ordinance after extended debate

The Sunnyside City Council voted to adopt an ordinance establishing a juvenile curfew, setting hours from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. seven days a week and prescribing a civil-warning-and-fine sequence for repeat violations.

Council members spent more than an hour debating enforcement logistics, civil-justice limits and whether the law will disproportionately affect certain youth before the motion passed in a roll call vote.

The ordinance creates a graduated response: an initial verbal warning, a $100 civil fine for a second violation within a year and a $250 civil fine for a third violation within a year, with fines assessed to parents. The draft includes exceptions for juveniles who are accompanied by an adult, are traveling to or from a religious ceremony, or are at approved sporting events. Police described the ordinance as a civil tool rather than criminal enforcement, citing U.S. Supreme Court constraints on criminal curfews.

Chief Layman, the police chief, described the ordinance as the product of earlier work in the public safety committee and said the city’s final draft balances safety and constitutional limits: “This is the final product that we, agreed upon.” He told council the curfew would be a civil infraction, not a criminal charge, and summarized the hours and penalty cycle: “It will establish a curfew there, from 11PM to 5AM, 7 days a week.”

Council debate focused on operational costs and equity. Councilor Hancock and others asked whether officers could reasonably detain minors, arrange parent pickup and still respond to other calls — and whether the city can track additional staffing impacts. Chief Layman said officers would use discretion and that the department would attempt to track time and report back: “we're gonna try and track time if this is approved, and and get something back to you maybe after a quarter or 6 months of use.”

Some councilors urged caution and more community input. Councilor Foster said she had not found evidence that curfews work in comparable cities and asked for more outreach to schools, parents and service providers. Councilor Vasquez and Deputy Mayor defended the ordinance as a protective tool for minors and suggested a trial period and follow-up evaluation.

Public comment during the meeting included concerns that curfews can create unnecessary police encounters for marginalized youth. Mr. Salas, a Sunnyside resident speaking during public comment, argued against curfew policy in principle: "Curfews don't reduce crime... Curfews send the wrong message to our youth, a message of distrust rather than guidance." His remarks were part of the public-comment record but did not change the council's vote.

A motion to adopt the ordinance was made by Councilor Vasquez and seconded by the Deputy Mayor. In the final roll call the votes recorded in the transcript were: Councilor Hancock — yes; Councilor Vasquez — yes; Councilor Ripley — yes; Councilor Hart — yes; Councilor Foster — no; Deputy Mayor — yes. The motion passed.

The ordinance includes procedural language about police discretion, minimum safekeeping limits for juveniles taken into custody, and referral paths to state and county social services when needed. Council members asked staff to return with implementation details and impact tracking after initial use so the council can reassess enforcement burden and community effects.

Councilors repeatedly emphasized that the curfew is intended as a public-safety and protective tool rather than a revenue source. Supporters said it will give police a legal basis to contact parents and get minors home; skeptics warned of uneven enforcement and asked for greater data collection and outreach to schools and youth-service providers.

The council instructed staff to proceed with the ordinance as adopted and monitor its use for later reporting and potential revision.