Teton County prosecutors, sheriff and residents spar over proposed juvenile ordinances including a civil curfew

TETON COUNTY, Idaho — Prosecutors and law enforcement presented three draft juvenile ordinances to the Teton County Board of County Commissioners on Dec. 8, arguing the measures are narrowly targeted, non‑criminal tools to help families and prevent escalation into criminal conduct.

The presentation laid out three drafts — runaway, beyond parental control and a civil curfew — and repeatedly stressed that none of the measures would authorize arrests. “None of the 3 draft ordinances … authorize arrest of any sort,” the presenter said, adding the curfew would be an infraction and the maximum sanction would be a ticket, not jail.

Why it matters: County officials said changes in Idaho case law mean local ordinances are now necessary to preserve longstanding tools that prosecutors and police used under state statute. Prosecutor Ryan Godfrey told the board the Idaho Supreme Court recently clarified that Idaho Code 25-16 is an enabling statute that requires local ordinance action for counties that want to retain the prior functionality.

What supporters said: Sheriff’s office representatives and prosecutors said the curfew would be used sparingly — typically when officers are already on scene for escalating “night games” or when minors are encountered with older non‑family adults. The sheriff’s office described common situations drivers and deputies already respond to, and said warnings would likely be the first response.

What opponents said: Dozens of residents urged the board to pause or reject the curfew. Speakers including Monica Carrillo of Family Safety Network, Emily Bilcher (executive director of Family Safety Network) and others warned the ordinance could disproportionately affect Latino, immigrant and other marginalized youth, increase policing of ordinary activity and create lasting records for minors. “Curfews across the country have been shown to be enforced unevenly and this opens the door for racial profiling,” one public commenter said.

Safeguards discussed: Presenters proposed explicit carve‑outs — including when a juvenile leaves home to escape abuse — and a mandatory warning provision so officers would normally issue warnings before citing youth. Prosecutors also highlighted diversion programs and prosecutorial discretion to dismiss abuses of the ordinance.

Next steps: The board declined to make an immediate motion and invited further written input and legislative drafting. Commissioners urged staff to refine statutory language and consider a public, multidisciplinary review of supports and carve‑outs before returning with a revised proposal.

Quotes: “This is a tool that parents need,” prosecutor Ryan Godfrey said of the proposed ordinances. “If law enforcement is abusing this statute, it’s gonna get dismissed,” he added, describing prosecutorial discretion.

What’s next: The commission said it would accept further written suggestions and continue dialogue; no vote on adoption occurred at the Dec. 8 meeting.

Sources: Presentation by county prosecution and sheriff’s office; public comments recorded at the Dec. 8 board meeting.