Thousands of local teens flocked to movie theaters July 14, bedecked in costume and eagerly awaiting the release of the latest Harry Potter film.  While that series’ last midnight premiere has come and gone, young moviegoers may encounter difficulties in attending such events in the future – beyond finding tickets, of course.  The Montgomery County Council is considering a curfew that would force theaters to turn unaccompanied minors away at the door.

The youth curfew, proposed by the Montgomery County Police Department and County Executive Ike Leggett, seeks to reduce crime by and against minors by prohibiting them from public places between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. on weeknights and 12 a.m. and 5 p.m. during the weekend.

The bill does include many necessary exemptions from the rule.  At a midnight premiere, for instance, anyone who can manage to drag a parent along for the show can get in.  School events are also safe, as well as jobs and a vaguely-worded clause about “exercising First Amendment Rights,” among other situations.  Although the curfew may not seem to apply excessively to a teen’s daily life, its complexity and its harsh punishments would be a serious inconvenience to any teens who do want to stay out late for legitimate reasons, as well as parents, police and establishments that profit from late-night business from teens.

First of all, statistics do not suggest that curfews reduce crime against minors. A 2000 evaluation of the 1996 Prince George’s County curfew found that the imposition of a curfew did not significantly affect teen victimization rates.  Another 2000 study found that curfew laws result in increased crime during non-curfew hours, regardless of crime trends during curfew hours.

The curfew bill sets harsh consequences for parents of curfew violators, as well as businesses allowing teens “after hours.”  While the minor himself faces only a stay at the police office until his parents arrive and the possibility of a community service assignment, the parents will incur multiple Class A Violations and may be required to take parenting classes.  The Class A Violation threat also applies to “any owner or operator of an establishment” who admits a minor during curfew hours.  For comparison purposes, a theft of $500 or more is a Class A Violation.  This designation is far too harsh a punishment for failure to constantly monitor one or more teens throughout the night.

The solution to such threatened punishment, from a shopkeeper’s point of view, is to ensure that no minor enters the store illegally.  Clerks or cashiers would have to interrogate every customer who looked underage, which would lead to age profiling, and teen customers would need to have means of proving their innocence when challenged.  If innocence means that the teen is “on an errand at the direction of [his] parent, without any detour or stop,” an exemption granted by the curfew bill, then providing proof could be rather difficult.

From a parent’s perspective, the answer is to prevent one’s children from going out under illegal circumstances.  The bill stipulates that parents may not knowingly allow their children to violate the curfew, but how can parents prove that they weren’t aware of the child’s absence at the time of the violation?  Furthermore, a county curfew replaces more suitable ones set by parents, who know what their children are mature enough to do.

The curfew bill is clearly well-intentioned and might benefit local minors by keeping them off the streets at night.  However, its complex structure and unreasonable punishments do not guarantee a decrease in crime and would force parents, police and businesses to alienate teens.  This bill, if the Council decides to go ahead with it, is in need of serious revisions if it is truly meant to keep minors safe.