By Toni Locy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 30, 1996; Page A1

A federal judge overturned the District's juvenile curfew law yesterday, saying it violates the constitutional rights of law-abiding youths under 17 and infringes on their parents' rights to raise them as they see fit.

In a decision that could affect youth curfews in other jurisdictions, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan found that the city had a "compelling interest" in trying to reduce juvenile crime.

But he said the D.C. Council passed the curfew last year without credible statistical evidence that youths commit more crimes or become crime victims more often during the hours of the curfew: 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. on weekdays and midnight to 6 a.m. on weekends.

"In the court's view, this legislation was not narrowly tailored" enough to justify "the government's erosion of one of the most . . . valued liberty interests afforded citizens of a civilized society -- the cherished freedom of movement," Sullivan wrote in a 47-page opinion.

The judge especially took issue with the law's jaded view of parents. "The court is troubled by the implicit assumption . . . that parental control over activities of children in the District has regressed to the point where intervention by [the] city council must replace the authority and discretion of the District's parents," he wrote.

"While some parents in the District undoubtedly have abrogated their responsibilities, this court does not have before it any record evidence that most parents in the District are unable to control or protect their children," Sullivan said. "Thus, the court would be remiss in putting its imprimatur on a law that impacts on thousands of its law-abiding citizens based upon a mere assumption that a majority of the District's parents require the city government to second-guess their parenting decisions."

D.C. Council member Harold Brazil (D-Ward 6), sponsor of the curfew legislation, said he was disappointed by Sullivan's ruling. "I think the people lost today, and that's unacceptable," he said, adding that he will explore the possibility of filing an appeal or reworking the law.

Mayor Marion Barry (D) said in a statement last night that he has asked the D.C. Corporation Counsel to review Sullivan's ruling but that no decision has been made on whether the city will appeal.

U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. said he believed a statute could be drafted to answer Sullivan's concerns.

Arthur B. Spitzer, legal director of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit on behalf of eight juveniles, four parents or guardians, and a Georgetown movie theater, said the decision will send "a message" to jurisdictions contemplating curfews. Locally, those include Prince William County, where a hearing is scheduled next month on a juvenile curfew more restrictive than the District's.

Spitzer said the decision is very significant because it holds jurisdictions to a tougher legal standard of "strict scrutiny," which carries a "very high burden of proof."

The city's curfew went into effect in July 1995 with the strong support of the council and Barry. Under the law, misdemeanor charges could be filed against youths who violated the curfew and parents or businesses who allowed them to do so.

Although the curfew went on the books with much fanfare, it has been enforced loosely. This year, about 520 juveniles were picked up for curfew violations, but only three parents were penalized -- not with fines but with orders to attend parenting class.

D.C. police Officer Robert Garisto said 139 of the juveniles were released to their parents and 48 were turned over the D.C. Department of Human Services. The overwhelming majority -- 333 -- were charged with other crimes in addition to violating the curfew.

Spitzer said he believes Sullivan's decision will affect Prince George's County, which has a curfew that requires youths under 17 to be off the streets and out of other public areas from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. weeknights and midnight to 5 a.m. weekends.

But Prince George's County Council member M.H. Jim Estepp (D-9th District) disagreed, saying the curfew was modeled after legislation that other cities have defended successfully in the courts. He said the county did its homework by gathering the kinds of statistics that Sullivan found lacking in the District's case.

"Our bill is totally different than the District's," Estepp said. "There are no criminal penalties, no sweeps, no detention centers. Each component of it has been constitutionally tested elsewhere and upheld."

But Brazil said he thought there was proof to support the District's curfew. "It seems like everybody else but the judge and the ACLU knows that it's dangerous out there," he said. "We are trying to make our streets safe and make our kids safe . . . and these folks are splitting hairs."

Courts have split on the constitutionality of juvenile curfews, which have been passed in nearly three-quarters of the 200 largest U.S. cities, including Baltimore. In Milwaukee and Dallas, among others, federal judges upheld curfews based on the cities' compelling interest in reducing juvenile crime.

But Sullivan said the District, with its "hodgepodge" of "flawed statistics," had not justified infringing on juveniles' freedom of movement. He said he was moved by the stories of the young plaintiffs in the suit, who missed modeling assignments, parties, swim practices, debate team activities and walking their dogs.

Staff writer Philip P. Pan contributed to this report.