Antony Barone Kolenc
;e Debate Over Daytime Curfews
;e time to learn the law is now, not when your child
comes home in the back of a police car.
My family lives just a mile away from an excellent county library, which my homeschooled children
can visit on a nice day in order to check
out books for school research or additional reading. ;ey enjoy the stroll with
their older sister and feel empowered to
use the library’s resources. But would
;ere is no way for police
to distinguish between a
home-educated child and
a truant public school
student, unless the law
also sets up an intrusive
registration and ID
they take that walk if they knew that a
police o;cer would stop them, question
them, and possibly ticket them or drive
them home in the back of a police car? I
;at is just one example of potential
harm that a daytime curfew poses for
homeschooling families. ;ese laws—a
trend that began to catch on in cities and
counties during the 1990s—prohibit mi-
nors from being in public places during
school hours, o;en at the risk of a sti;
;ne or a hearing before a judge. Are these
laws necessary, and do they really pose a
risk to homeschoolers?
Why a Daytime Curfew?
Proponents of daytime curfews are motivated by good intentions: to decrease
juvenile crime and increase the high
school graduation rate. Rarely, if ever, are
such laws intended to target homeschoolers. In fact, those children taught at home
are o;en excepted from the curfew rules.
Yet homeschool advocacy groups, including the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), are among the most
vocal opponents of these laws.
Statistics on the e;ectiveness of daytime
curfews vary widely. For instance, in December 2011—during a debate on whether to enact such a law in Covington, Kentucky (a Cincinnati suburb), the acting
police chief of neighboring Newport estimated that his town’s curfew had lowered
the rate of daytime crimes committed by
minors “probably by over 70 percent.”
others, such as Ken Adams, Professor of
Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida, have studied the issue and
suggest that these laws result in little statistical improvement to the juvenile crime
rate and may even increase truancy.
Whatever their actual impact, daytime
curfews continue to be a popular means
by which local governments address per-
ceived juvenile problems. In 2011, cities
and counties across the United States con-
sidered implementing these laws, passing
them in towns such as Concord, California,
and Covington, Kentucky, while rejecting
passage in places such as Carlinville, Illi-
nois, and Stoughton, Wisconsin.
Are ;ese Laws Permissible?
Opponents of daytime curfews assert
several reasons why such laws might be
impermissible. To name just a few, they
argue that such laws interfere with a minor’s constitutional rights to freedom of
movement or to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. ;ese statutes
might also be unconstitutionally vague,
making it unclear exactly what conduct is
prohibited. Further, they can infringe on
parents’ rights to rear their children.
;ere are also concerns that curfews unfairly target minority students.
Recently, the Los Angeles City Council considered changes to its law a;er
the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) raised various concerns, including the over-ticketing of Latino and Afri-can-American students.
Even where exceptions for home education are built into a daytime curfew, there
is cause for concern. ;e chance that a
child will experience an inconvenient and
potentially intimidating encounter with
police is likely to “chill” a homeschooler’s freedom to go outside during school
hours. A;er all, there is no way for police
to distinguish between a home-educated
child and a truant public school student,
unless the law also sets up an intrusive
registration and ID card system.