Flamingbaby

Did I HEAR that correctly? "We're talking about robberies, home invasions, loitering, shootings". LOITERING? Wow.

This video is chock full of awesomeness. "It's just gonna make it worser".

Seriously, what a fucking retarded idea. And possibly illegal. Can they actually arrest you for coming outside your house, constitutionally? I'm 99% sure that the answer is no.

Maybe it's worth it though, to stop the loitering and other things that he mentioned.

I'm really not versed on the constitutionality of martial law (although it is something I should look into), but I'm pretty sure curfews are not against the constitution.

Rhyno wrote:
I'm really not versed on the constitutionality of martial law (although it is something I should look into), but I'm pretty sure curfews are not against the constitution.

Curfews on your own private property aren't against the constitution?

kRabbit wrote:
Rhyno wrote:
I'm really not versed on the constitutionality of martial law (although it is something I should look into), but I'm pretty sure curfews are not against the constitution.

Curfews on your own private property aren't against the constitution?As I said, I'm not sure about the martial law aspect of what this mayor is trying to do, but the curfew portion is legit... at least constitutionally.

the curfew portion is legit... at least constitutionally. No, it's not. A 24 hour curfew violates the citizens' clearly defined rights of freedom of assembly and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the more abstract freedom of movement.

Curfew laws that have been sucessfully upheld have two major differences from this one:

1.) Those curfew laws only effect minors, who traditionally have a different and more limited set of rights (voting being the most obvious)

2.) Those curfews are for a limited period of the day, allowing for some freedom of mobility, not 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Telling a person they cannot leave their house and walk around ever violates consitutional rights.

Found this on it too, it's from the ACLU, but it spells out the arguments pretty well.

This order is blatantly unconstitutional on numerous grounds. First, such curfews have never been allowed under the laws of the United States, barring riot, insurrection, or natural disaster. Not one case has ever allowed for the imposition of searches, seizures, and house arrest against innocent citizens because of the high crime rate in a particular city. See, e.g. American Civil Liberties Union of West Tennessee, Inc. v. Chandler, 458 F.Supp. 456 (W.D. Tenn. 1978). In fact, "state of emergency" curfews imposed upon youth aimed at addressing youth crime have been declared unconstitutional. Ramos v. Town of Vernon, 353 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2003); Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 1997); Hutchins v. District of Columbia, 942 F.Supp. 665 (D.D.C. 1996); Walters v. Barry, 711 F.Supp. 1125 (D.D.C. 1989); McCollester v. City of Keene, 586 F.Supp. 1381 (D.N.H. 1984); Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1981); Naprstek v. City of Norwich, 545 F.2d 815, 818 (2d Cir. 1976); State v. J.P., 907 So.2s 1101 (Fla. 2004); City of Sumner v. Walsh, 148 Wn.2d 490 (2003).

Second, requiring adult residents of the city to be on house arrest violates these individuals' rights to travel and association, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Third, the very language of the Order violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that, in effect, it proclaims that the Fourth Amendment is waived for all persons, including those suspected of no criminal activity. The warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is in place specifically to prohibit these kinds of sweeping searches. Law enforcement, even in areas where there are higher crime rates, is not a sufficient basis upon which to place people on house arrest, or set aside the Fourth Amendment.

Fourth, the Order likely violates Helena-West Helena residents' rights to equal protection under the laws. "[O]nce curfews are imposed, the burden falls disproportionately on minority individuals and communities." Harvard Note, "Juvenile Curfews and Gang Violence: Exiled on Main Street," 107 Harvard L. Rev. 1693, 1707 (1994). The order to evict all residents of homes where at least three crimes have occurred violates residents' rights to association as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution. Finally, most loitering ordinances and arrests also violate constitutional guarantees. Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972).

Notwithstanding the City Code and Curfew Order, the residents of Helena-West Helena have the right to sit under shade trees in their front yard, to ride their bicycles along the streets, protest this policy, and drive around the city with the full protections of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Citizens, including those expressing opposition to the curfew order, should be subject to no special scrutiny by law enforcement unless they are suspected of some criminal activity.

Bauh4us wrote:A 24 hour curfew violates the citizens' clearly defined rights of freedom of assembly and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the more abstract freedom of movement.Ummm... a 24 hour curfew is less of a curfew and more like the martial law we were talking about. I think we are in violent agreement here. I actually agree with the ACLU's stance... especially this portion:This order is blatantly unconstitutional on numerous grounds. First, such curfews have never been allowed under the laws of the United States, barring riot, insurrection, or natural disaster. Not one case has ever allowed for the imposition of searches, seizures, and house arrest against innocent citizens because of the high crime rate in a particular city.A curfew can't be arbitrarily placed on a people (non-minors at least) without just cause. If the crime rate is elevated to the point that police department cannot protect innocent citizens and their lives are in danger, a dusk til dawn curfew is permissible. The aspects that make this curfew unconstitutional (and more like martial law) is the open time frame and lack of provisions to allow certain individuals who need to leave their residences (for jobs and other such examples) the freedom to do so.

For example, Freeburg has a curfew on minors that begins at ten o'clock. A police officer can stop and question any minor who is out after that time. If the minor is returning home from work, he or she is allowed to do so. On the enforcement end, I think the officer merely takes the minor's name and address and checks on employment the next day while confirming the minor goes directly to his or her residence that night.

Curfews have been enacted in many new subdivisions for all residence. I know of one in Swansea and two new subdivisions in Smithton (this is in part, thanks to Homes by Deesign). I might be off on the times, but I think the time frame for the curfew is 2200-0400. I don't think the curfew is enforced by the Smithton Police Department, but they can be called by the subdivision's "Neighborhood Watch" if there are violators of this curfew. Again, enforcement of this curfew is pretty lacks. In fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to those who actually live in that subdivision (not literally but practically). I've only heard of a couple of times when the Police Department was actually called to check up on someone, and in those instances, the individual(s) did not live in the subdivision and were 'escorted' by the officer out of the subdivision.

This is probably a bad example since most people will point to that and cry foul about corrupt local governments. I personally don't mind such rules or enforcement since (at least to my knowledge) the residents like the idea of having such a curfew in place. It's self government. I've lived in the small town of Smithton my entire life... until I moved to Okinawa of course. The town has gotten bigger and there are references to "New Smithton" and "Old Smithton", but I like the ability a people have to local and self government. You know people and people know you. We look out for each other.

Back on topic, are curfews by themselves unconstitutional? No. Curfews are allowed by the constitution. Are curfews unconstitutional for the examples I've used above? It's certainly questionable in the Arkansas case. I'm not sure if I have enough information to say. The minor curfew in Freeburg is certainly constitutional. The subdivision curfews... probably not. If they were challenged, they might not hold up in a federal court. I guess this is one instance where I don't care about constitutionality however. I like the fact that ordinances are in place so local law enforcement can make sure that people aren't where they shouldn't be. Even though those ordinances aren't in effect outside those subdivisions, I do know they check up on other places throughout town per request (on one instance, this worked to my advantage). It filled me with a certain comfort knowing the cops were looking out for me. I guess that's why I don't care about the constitutionality of what they're doing.

To my knowledge, every curfew law that has not been shot down as unconstitutional only effected minors. I would imagine that this is due to the precedence set in many other laws that minors have a different set of rights. Curfews on all members of the population have historically been declared unconstitutional because of the violation to the right of assembly (among other reasons).

The fact that you don't care about constitutionality when its convenient for you seems a bit hypocritical to me, being that people adopting that kind of attitude is what led us to our current government, which you so often rail against.

Bauh4us wrote:The fact that you don't care about constitutionality when its convenient for you seems a bit hypocritical to me, being that people adopting that kind of attitude is what led us to our current government, which you so often rail against.On this issue, I agree 100% that my stance is hypocritical and have no defense for my point of view. I do, however, have reasons...

I do agree with the constitution in theory. Everyone's rights should be protected, and the people should have the ability to self govern. The federal government should be limited in power in civil issues. So far, so good. I haven't made myself a hypocrite yet. When it comes to the issue of the federal government enforcing personal freedoms versus the people's right to self govern, I tend to side with self government. I've seen the advantages of that self government living in a small town (that's getting not so small anymore). I liked that we looked out for each other. If we made mistakes that happened to be illegal (trespassing, drinking, smoking, small item theft, etc.), we would have the shit scared out of us, but in the end, we wouldn't be in any real trouble. We wouldn't have a permanent mark on our record for doing something dumb in our community... unless, of course, we repeatedly did the same thing over and over again. The Chief of Police knew we weren't causing any real harm and didn't find it necessary to punish us under the same rules that were meant for actual criminals who are a real danger to society. This is where I think the constitution fails practically... specifically, the fourteenth amendment in which the federal government was given more powers over civil issues and their enforcement.

I've went off on the fourteenth amendment in the past, and I won't repeat my objections to this unconstitutionally ratified amendment here. I've stated that you either agree with the constitution, all of it, or you don't in other threads. I still stand by that statement. It doesn't matter how the fourteenth amendment got there, it's there now. If I accept the constitution as the law of our land, I accept the fourteenth amendment as well. This is where my practical and constitutional argument ends and I become a hypocrite by arguing practically. I like community politics. I like self government. I think a community should have the right to legislate, enact laws and ordinances, and enforce those rules and regulations as they see fit without the federal government crying foul. There are obvious exceptions to this point of view. I'm not an extremist. To use a different example, federal laws have been passed by our Congress making certain drugs illegal. This, in my opinion, is a civil issue. The State of California disagrees with the legislation and enforcement of these laws. Constitutionally, the federal government is in the right. I, however, tend to agree with California that they should run their state with drug enforcement laws as they see fit.

I still consider myself a constitutionalist, but I guess I'm a states-rightist and limited federal government man first. I would certainly support the removal of certain amendments to the constitution that have given the federal government more power and have taken some civil powers from the states, but unless something like that would occur, I guess my ideals and principles are indeed conflicted and even hypocritical.

As hypocritical as my point of view might be, I do disagree with this being the same kind of attitude that led us to our current government, which I still rally against. The attitude that has led to our current government has been the consolidation of power... constitutional or not. I support self government over a consolidated government.

Um... I don't get you Rhyno.

This is in the same vein as the War on Terror.

"Oh my god, the world is so scary, we have to take away your rights in order to protect you!"

That's cool with Rhyno!

Rico wrote:
Um... I don't get you Rhyno.

This is in the same vein as the War on Terror.

"Oh my god, the world is so scary, we have to take away your rights in order to protect you!"

That's cool with Rhyno!Ummm... a curfew enacted during "riot, insurrection, or natural disaster" is completely legal and constitutional... as Bauh4us has pointed out with his ACLU quote. I'm not sure if the criminal situation in Arkansas qualifies as this, but I have already stated that 24 hour, no exceptions curfew is more like martial law and not legal or constitutional.

I don't see what's not to get. I think I've made it clear in this and many other threads that I trust localized government over a centralized government. I find a localized government to be more beholden to the people and better equipped to serve the best interests of it's citizens. I've stated reasons for my hypocritical stance on the constitution and the right to self govern. I can understand those who disagree with me, but I don't think it's that hard to grasp my point of view.

I think Rhyno tends to feel this way about local government because he has only been on the positive side of such a government. I on the other hand was harassed quite a bit by the local police in Smithton. This was because I had long hair and was not originally from town.

Certain people got a slap on the wrist because they were townies, not because they were harmless. Dustin Becker was a one man crime wave for a long time, but because his family was connected and he was a townie he got slapped on the wrist for something like 8 years.

Another example is Smithton's "no DUI" list. Are these people any less dangerous when drunk behind the wheel than non townies?

The constitution doesn't "fail practically" in small towns, it helps to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" in small town populations from assigning differing rights to different people.

You see. Bauh4us understands my point of view perfectly even though he disagrees with me. I happen to take the opposite point of view. Is drinking and driving bad and irresponsible? Yes. Does it warrant the punishment of vehicle manslaughter if there is an accident or revoking the driver's license if there is no accident? In my opinion, no. The punishment for a DUI can be worse than if you simply stabbed someone. If the punishment for this crime would have been consistently enforced throughout my Pop's lifetime like it is now, my Dad would never be allowed legally to get behind the wheel of a vehicle again. He might not even be a free man. Even I've driven when I was probably above the legal limit. I like that the local law enforcement in the town in which I lived realized how ridiculously broken the punishment is and how it doesn't fit the crime.

I will restate Bauh4us's closing quote from the previous post to fit my stance:The constitution does "fail practically" in small towns, it doesn't help prevent the "tyranny of the majority" in the federal government from assigning ridiculously broken laws uniformly to all people.

I also agree that DUI laws are pretty ridiculous, but what's even worse than that is selectively enforcing such a law. If the Smithton police were trying to bring attention to the fact that such laws are draconian and counter productive I'd be all for it, but they are not doing something so noble. They are using it to create a privileged class of citizen that has a different set of rules. Almost like a noble class. If I got pulled over for DUI in Smithton I guarantee they would throw the book at me. Giving me a different punishment because I'm not one of the chosen few in town unfair and unamerican. One of the great things about our constitution is that it provides equal rights and equal protection under the law, this is not a practical failure.

I can understand what you mean Smithton case. I do support them not enforcing the DUI laws even selectively though. I guess instances like the state of California not enforcing ridiculous drugs laws uniformly is more fair however. Sometimes I don't support uniform enforcement of laws either however. That's what can lead to ridiculous sex offender charges. Well, that and ridiculous sex offender laws. This is why I think the constitution fails in it's legislation and enforcement of civil issues. It's obvious that an 18 year old convincing a 15 year old to have sex with him/her is different than a 45 year old convincing a 16 year old to have sex with him/her. Yet, thanks to uniform enforcement of the laws dictated by the constitution, both the 18 year old and the 45 year old are both sex offenders who should be treated the same. This is why I tend to side with the more localized government when it comes to civil issues.

I think I've listed my reasons for favoring localized governments in the past, but if I didn't, here it is. Localized representatives tend to be held more accountable for their actions and, therefore, are more beholden to the people. When you get to the federal level, every politician seems to have his/her own agenda. It tends to be easier to spot corruption in localized government. It tends to be easier to fix corruption in localized government. Laws are more easily changed in localized governments. On the federal level, it takes... well, an act of congress. This makes ridiculous laws harder to get rid of on the federal level. Even the Supreme Court is more likely to rule a state law unconstitutional before it rules a federal law such. I forgot... the Supreme Court will just "interpret the law" as it sees fit. This is why I dislike the amendments to the constitution that have given the federal government more civil duties and responsibilities taking them away from the more localized governments. I still consider myself a constitutionalist, but, as I have stated, I guess I'm a limited federal government man first.