LOWVILLE — An appellate court's decision deeming Rochester's curfew law unconstitutional could affect other such laws, including one proposed in the Lewis County seat that will be discussed further Wednesday.
Village Attorney Mark G. Gebo said he'll need to review the 16-page decision before making a determination. And when given a reporter's synopsis of the majority judges' reasoning Monday morning, Mr. Gebo raised some counter-arguments in defense of Lowville's proposed law.
By a 3-2 vote Friday in Rochester, the state Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, deemed unconstitutional a 2006 curfew law, overturning a February 2007 decision by state Supreme Court Judge Thomas M. Van Strydonck in Monroe County that affirmed the law's validity.
The trio of judges in the majority ruled that the Rochester curfew law, by allowing police officers to take a minor into custody for a curfew violation, is inconsistent with state Family Court and Penal Law. According to the majority's written opinion, the Family Court Act allows officers "to take a child under the age of 16 into custody without a warrant only in cases where an adult could be arrested for a crime, and a violation does not fall within the definition of a crime." They added that Penal Law sets 16 as the "minimum age for criminal responsibility" unless a minor commits certain designated felonies.
The three judges also held that the curfew law infringes on parental rights to control their children's upbringing and juveniles' First Amendment rights.
"The ordinance prohibits the presence of minors in any 'public place' for five or six hours each day, and thereby restricts expression in all public forums for approximately one fourth of each day," the ruling stated.
The two judges who favored the curfew wrote, "Surely, officers charged with the duty to enforce the ordinance may be included in the class of ordinary citizens that know and comprehend the basic protections afforded by the First Amendment."
The pair also said parental rights are not absolute and a "narrowly tailored" curfew would intrude only minimally on such rights. And they suggested the law provides for only "temporary detention" of curfew violators, not their arrests.
Rochester Mayor Robert J. Duffy plans to appeal Friday's decision to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, according to a story in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.
"Our curfew doesn't charge any kid," Mr. Gebo said of the Lowville proposal. "It places responsibility on parents."
The First Amendment and the state provision deeming minors not criminally responsible for most actions shouldn't keep municipalities from placing some restrictions on them, he said.
Many other villages in the area already have curfew laws on the books, said Mr. Gebo, who represents numerous north country municipalities. Their primary intent is to curtail vandalism and other late-night antics by youths, he said.
"It's just a tool in the arsenal," Mr. Gebo said.
Lowville trustees on Oct. 1 held a public hearing on a proposed law instating a year-round curfew for youths under 16. About a dozen people spoke against the proposed law — which would implement a curfew starting at 11 p.m. from May 1 to Labor Day and 10 p.m. the rest of the year — while only one expressed support for it.
Partly because of the comments and the absence of Mayor Mary E. Youngs, trustees decided to continue the public hearing at Wednesday's meeting. Written comments also will be accepted through Wednesday.
The meeting is scheduled to begin a half-hour early at 5 p.m. in the village office on Dayan Street to allow officials from Sovie & Bowie, Watertown, to present their annual audit report. Other business, including the hearing, will begin at 5:30 p.m.
