Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Curfew topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to hold off on 18-year-old curfew; attorney warns of constitutional, enforcement risks
Summary
Public commenters at the July 20 Clark council meeting urged officials not to adopt a curfew targeting people 18, citing limited local evidence of a problem and concerns about selective enforcement and constitutional rights. The council had tabled the ordinance for further review.
Dozens of residents addressed the council during the public portion of the July 20 meeting, asking elected officials to keep a proposed curfew ordinance — which would affect people 18 — off the books.
John Griese told the council he has attended many meetings and said he had not heard evidence that 18-year-olds are causing a public-safety problem that would justify a curfew. “I don't think this is a good solution,” Griese said, urging the council to keep the item tabled.
Anthony de Gregorio said he was likewise unaware of a major problem among teenagers and urged the council to prioritize other public-safety concerns, including what he described as persistent issues with people loitering near local stores. “The problems that I see are completely unrelated to children,” de Gregorio said.
Mike Shulman, who identified himself as a resident and lawyer, warned the council the curfew language as proposed “probably violates multiple constitutional rights” and could raise selective-enforcement concerns. He asked what specific findings or law-enforcement data the council had used to support the measure; the mayor and several council members said those questions were part of the reason the ordinance was tabled for more review.
Council members said they had already discussed several of the enforcement and constitutional questions raised by members and that additional review — including input from the police captain and the business administrator — informed the decision to postpone action. Multiple council members encouraged residents to contact staff with specific neighborhood complaints so police could respond.
The council did not adopt the curfew at the July 20 meeting; the item remained tabled for further review and possible revision before any public hearing or vote.
