Lynchburg council extends citywide youth curfew after divided debate

Lynchburg City Council voted 6-1 to adopt an ordinance enacting a citywide youth curfew and directed staff to return with a six-month review, the council said at its meeting. The measure passed after extended public comment and debate among council members, the police chief and residents.

Supporters and opponents framed the debate around safety, data and enforcement. Michael Bremer, a resident of Ward 4 who spoke during public comment, urged councilors to limit any new curfew term and demanded more data on stops and case outcomes. "Decision should be based on data, not intuition about efficacy," Bremer said, and asked council to consider “imposing this law for no more than 3 months" at that time.

Council member Reid defended the curfew as a public-safety tool, saying the proposal followed community outcry after recent youth deaths and that the ordinance gives law enforcement one more option to keep youths off the streets at risky hours. "We are not having an overwhelming number of people begging us to discontinue the curfew," Reid said, adding that the goal is fewer youth victims and fewer juvenile arrests.

Police Chief Zudema (identified in the meeting as the city police chief) addressed the data questions raised by speakers. He said the countywide tally used by the department shows 49 charges related to the ordinance period and that many juvenile cases were "taken under advisement" by juvenile court rather than resulting in convictions. "Our goal is not to see if we can get juveniles convicted of a curfew violation. Our goal is to change behavior," Chief Zudema said, describing common court dispositions such as community service or educational assignments.

Members pressed on how to interpret percentages versus raw counts. Council member Feraldi and others pointed out that percentage increases on small bases can appear large; the chief replied that, for the curfew hours specifically (11 p.m. to 5 a.m.), the raw difference cited in staff materials amounted to fewer than one offense on average (about 2.7 versus 3.5), a change he said the council should weigh alongside other measures.

In response to calls for more information, Council member Timla successfully proposed — and the council accepted as part of the motion — that staff compile a report at the six-month mark. The review is to include representatives from the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office, police and city staff to present data on encounters that did not result in arrest, demographics of those stopped and charged, and the final disposition of cases.

The ordinance passed on a 6-1 vote. Councilors did not name individual voters on the record when announcing the tally; the meeting minutes record the motion as passing 6–1. The council directed staff to provide the six-month briefing as a business-item update.

The ordinance’s supporters said they view the measure as one tool among many — including prevention programs and community mentoring — to reduce juvenile victimization. Opponents said available data do not demonstrate clear benefits and warned of unintended consequences and strained police-community relations.

Council members and staff said the six-month review is intended to provide the data requested during the meeting and to give the council an evidence base for future decisions.