Residents, Young and Old, Subjected to Curfew at Town Parks, Playgrounds, and Fields

In 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down a curfew law enacted by Lowell because it imposed a criminal penalty and potential detention at a DYS facility. Essentially, the court found that the right to travel is a fundamental civil liberty, and any law that restricts that right must pass stringent constitutional tests, which this law did not. The court allowed civil penalties (fines) for violations of the ordinance.

In an effort to curb or prevent youth crime in Wilmington, voters passed warrant article 22:  Curfew in Public Parks, Playgrounds and Fields (now Chapter 5, Section 52 of the Town's bylaws). The new bylaw prohibits any person to be present in the Town's parks, playgrounds, or fields one hour after sunset or one hour before sunrise. Exceptions to the general rule allow a person's presence in those designated areas if (1) they have a permit issued by the Recreation Department or Public School Department, or (2) if the designated areas are lit. Practically speaking, if you are inclined to run on the high school track an hour before sunrise, you need to have a permit to do so. Persons who violate the bylaw are subject to arrest (a criminal penalty) and a $50.00 fine for the first offense, and a $200.00 fine for subsequent offenses (civil penalties).

The bylaw further states that "[i]t shall be unlawful for the parent or the legal guardian of a juvenile to…permit,…or allow the juvenile to be in violation [of the curfew] unless such parent or legal guardian has made a missing persons notification to the…Police." Practically speaking, if your child is found to be in violation of the bylaw, the parent or legal guardian will be subjected to a $50.00 fine for the first offense, and a $200.00 for each subsequent offense (civil penalties).

More concerning is the provision in the bylaw that allows a police officer to obtain a child's name and address and record it with the police department if the officer, in his discretion, believes the juvenile is violating the bylaw. The problems with this procedure include (1) that a juvenile under the age of 15 years old has the right to have "an interested adult" present when he or she is questioned by police or even school administrators; (2) the child has the constitutional right to remain silent, and should be taught, by his parents or guardians, to respectfully decline to speak with the officer until an interested adult is notified, present at questioning, and gives consent to have their child questioned. I would submit to parents and guardians that it is inappropriate for their children to answer questions of police unless they and/or an attorney for the child is present. That might sound impractical and over-protective, but it is essential that a person's civil rights remain protected.

Most problematic with the bylaw is that when a child does assert his constitutional right to remain silent, the officer has the authority to take (seize) the child and bring him or her to the police department where the child will be detained until his or her parents or guardians are notified. This is an infringement on the constitutional right of a person to be free from unlawful seizure, and imposes a criminal penalty on the juvenile:  detention at the police department. It is the responsibility of parents and guardians, not law enforcement, to teach our kids their civil rights, responsibilities, and duties of citizenship. The former include the right to remain silent, to have an interested adult and/or attorney present during questioning, and the right to remain free from seizure. The latter include respecting the property of others and abiding by rules and boundaries. The role of the Town and law enforcement is to educate and publish to the general public the rules for our parks, playgrounds, and fields. It is not its role to enact and enforce a bylaw that infringes upon the rights of its residents.

Many juveniles become enveloped in the juvenile justice system for violations of over-reaching bylaws like this curfew bylaw. The drafters of this new law intend to penalize the parents of the kids caught in the parks, playgrounds, and fields during the curfew hours. The reality is that once a child's name and address are on file with the police department and he or she becomes "known" to police, that child is labeled and potentially prejudiced at school and in the community at large. This bylaw creates a slippery slope where law enforcement attempts to step into the role of parents and guardians, and infringes upon the rights of Wilmington's residents, especially the rights of juveniles. Massachusetts' highest court ruled that the right to travel is a fundamental civil liberty, and this Wilmington bylaw infringes upon that freedom.