Published on:

Court Discusses Curfew Law

The appellants in the case are Jiovon Anonymous, who is an infant being represented by his legal guardian and father, Thomas Anonymous. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the respondents of the case are the City of Rochester et al. the case is being heard in the Fourth Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Case Background

The plaintiff, anonymous infant, was born in January of 1992. This action is to declare part of an ordinance as unconstitutional and to have a judgment to grant relief from the ordinance. The plaintiffs argue that the ordinance is inconsistent with several statutes from the state and violates a number of their rights. The Supreme Court has denied this motion and granted a summary motion in favor of the defendants to dismiss the complaints.

Legal Background

City officials and the City Council have tried to address the issue of youth victimization and crimes through a curfew. These curfew laws were put in place after three boys were violently killed between June of 2001 and October of 2005. The first victim was a ten year old boy who was shot to death after watching a fight over a drug deal. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the second victim involved a twelve year old boy who was shot and killed at a drug house. The third victim was fourteen years old and stabbed to death after a fight between adults who were patrons at a bar.

The City Council held several community meetings and considered the creation of a juvenile curfew ordinance. Members of the council and the police department visited another city that had this type of law. Upon their return they pushed to have this ordinance put in place. After several public hearings and gathering support from members of the police, the president of the city council, and the mayor of the city, the ordinance was adopted.

Case Discussion

The plaintiffs argue that this law is in violation of their rights. After researching the issue the court has determined that provisions of the ordinances are inconsistent with Family Court Act section 305.2 and Penal Law section 30.

The defendants have argued that a police officer that detains a juvenile that is in violation of a curfew is similar to an officer returning a student to school or to taking a runaway child to his home or a facility for runaway children. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said they further state that these ordinances are similar as they allow police officers the right to take juveniles into custody for conduct that is not necessarily considered to be a crime.

In this particular case if a child is picked up for a violation of the curfew they are simply taken to a center and their parents are called to come get them.

For these reasons, we do not feel that the ordinance is in violation of any rights. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said curfew ordinances may not go above the laws of the state or of the country and it is not felt that this ordinance attempts to do so.

We find in favor of the defendants and the previous order is affirmed without costs. The appeal in the case is denied.

If you feel your rights have been violated in any way, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for help. Our team of lawyers will sit down with you during a free consultation and discuss your case. They will help you determine what your best course of legal action is. Our offices are located throughout New York City for your convenience. You may contact us at any time to set up an appointment for your consultation.

Contact Information