[Chicago City Council] UPDATED Legislative Brief - o16732 - Snap Curfew Ordinance
Co-authored with Legal Action Chicago.
Legistlative Brief Executive Summary
Overall: We urge City Council members to vote NO on this unconstitutional ordinance. It will expose the City to serious legal risk without delivering safety. There is no credible evidence that youth curfews reduce violence—but there is extensive evidence that youth-led peacekeeping and community-based interventions do. This proposal threatens those real solutions and undermines the City’s commitment to effective, rights-respecting public safety strategies.
From CPD: Last week Monday, June 9th, in federal court Larry Snelling publicly affirmed that snap curfews don’t work and that CPD never requested this tool:
“...it is a falsehood to say that CPD is requesting a snap curfew. Because I’m not. Because I would never use it…calling a curfew within 30 minutes of an incident for what we would use it for, it would be too late…” – Superintendent Larry Snelling
“...it would be unfair to the youth who are already in that location, even if crimes are being committed. They would be subjected to that curfew. That is not something that I asked for or that I need.” – Superintendent Larry Snelling
Legal concerns that would certainly lead to litigation, class action lawsuits, & mounting legal fees:
Potential infringement of the First Amendment – the language in this ordinance is overbroad, and creates a risk to chilling free speech, and could be used or invoked to disperse / penalize protest organizers or other protected First Amendment activities.
Potential infringement of due rights process – the ordinance uses a lower than standard “probable cause” before issuing a citation or making an arrest, doesn’t require the violations be intentional, lacks clear notice, and relies on unenforceably vague standards.
Potential infringement on Equal Protection Clause (and the IL Civil Rights Act) – in 2020, 3 out of 4 of the individuals stopped and arrested for curfew violations were Black – we have extreme concerns that this will be, once again, disproportionately applied to Black and Latine youth as compared to White youth.
No matter the time frame of the snap curfew, whether 30 minutes or 8 hours – these same constitutional risks will be at play (and likely more problematic with a longer time frame), and litigation would likely ensue, especially given precedent that has already been set around attempts at “predicting” crime.
After years of litigation, similar legislation in Chicago has been declared unconstitutional. The 1990’s gang loitering ordinance permitted CPD to arrest people if officers “reasonably believed” them to be a gang member and found them “loitering” (defined as “remaining in any one place with no apparent purpose”). Like this curfew proposal, it empowered police to predict illegal activity before it happens. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Lack of evidence that snap curfews lead to improvements in public safety:
A 2018 study published in the Review of Economics and Statistics (co-published by MIT & Harvard), demonstrates curfews have the opposite effect – increasing gun violence; a working version of this study outlined that youth curfews could, in fact, deter violence-prevention efforts and engagement that lead to disruption of activities that deter crime.
A 2016 review published in the Campbell Systematic Reviews found no reliable evidence that juvenile curfews reduce criminal behavior. Similarly, research by criminologist K. Adams concluded that curfews “fail to produce significant or consistent reductions in youth crime”.
A report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice found youth of color are far more likely to be cited for curfew violations, compounding the structural inequities they already face. Instead of improving safety, curfews often criminalize normal adolescent behavior—like walking home from a friend’s house or work—and increase tensions between young people and law enforcement.
To read the full report, click here.
