From Gribbit:
Why Isn’t A Town Enforcing Their Law? – The ACLU
The ACLU is watching a small town in western Pennsylvania because of its curfew law. Each night at 9:45 pm the Trafford fire station blows its alert sirens to alert teens and other children that the curfew is fast approaching. All persons under the age of 18 are to be home by 10:00 pm according to local law. But with the ACLU looking over their shoulder, the town has been reluctant to enforce their law.
This stems from one child. Again it is the needs of the one trumping the needs of the many. Mr. Spock wouldn’t agree with this total lack of logic but that is the principle that the ACLU operates under.
Under threat of lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, it appears the borough has backed off its curfew ordinance. Neither Mayor Kevin Karazsia nor solicitor Bill Ferraro would confirm or deny if the long-time curfew ordinance is being enforced — but this much is certain: In December, the ACLU contacted Ferraro after the Toocheck family complained to the organization. Attorney David Millstein, a volunteer at the ACLU who handled the case, said as far as he knows the ordinance is not being enforced. If he learns otherwise, he said, the ACLU will sue. Craig Toocheck contacted the organization after one of his sons was cited a second time under the Trafford curfew ordinance. The first incident occurred last summer when the boy, then 15, walked to the 7-11 without his parents’ permission around midnight. Craig Toocheck was asleep in bed when a police officer brought his son to the door. Surprised that his son had gone in search of a Slurpee without informing him, Toocheck agreed to pay the $73 fine and grounded his son — an active Boy Scout who posted a 4.11 grade point average on his last Penn-Trafford report card — for two weeks. The second incident occurred last August when the boy was watching a pre-season Steelers game at a friend’s house. At half-time — and with his parents permission — he left to walk home. The time was 10 minutes after curfew. Craig Toocheck said his son was a half block from his home on Edgewood Avenue when he was picked up by police. A week later, a fine for $98 was in the Toocheck mailbox. Millstein called the fine and the curfew ridiculous. “The whole thing was unconstitutional,” he said. “There’s no question about it.” The curfew violates one of the rights in the First Amendment — the freedom of assembly, Millstein said. “To impose a curfew on a person just because they’re a juvenile… It’s just not constitutional.” Toocheck said the curfew also violates the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments — which protect against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and includes the right to travel. SOURCE
Ok, let me get this straight, the ACLU is claiming that a reasonable curfew of 10:00 pm for what we can all agree are minor children violates the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments? How absurd. Next you will be telling me that a 9 year old has the right to buy a semi-automatic handgun provided they are willing to wait the required waiting period. I won’t hold my breath on that one but it falls in line with the same logic.
Here are the facts folks:
  Â
  Â
  Â
At which point do we throw caution to the wind and teach youngsters the meaning of law and order? If children are subjected to the same freedoms that adults enjoy, then why is it that no one is standing in line to represent children who are forced to live under their parents’ regulations as false imprisonment? After all, a responsible parent would restrict where and when a child can travel outside of the home right?
If you leave children alone for any amount of time, their inner demons will get the better of them and trouble usually follows. As someone who lives with 2 teenage boys, I can tell you that if left to their devices there would be holes in the walls, broken fixtures, parties 24/7 where all kinds of unspeakable activities would be occurring, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Teenage children often times need to be restricted more than younger children.
The ACLU will stop at nothing to remove all barriers to free will in order to create chaos. Once that is achieved they will swoop in utilizing their dupes in black vestments to create laws restricting all liberties to restore order and a Communist state will be born.
The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one. In this case the needs of Trafford to be safe and secure in their community without an unchecked unregulated youth population roaming the streets causing trouble at all times of the night out weight any presumption that a minor child has to Constitutional rights to travel. And if I remember right, there is no such right in the 4th, 5th, 9th, or 14th Amendments.
The ACLU needs to allow local governments decide what is best for the citizens of their locality. The beautiful thing about a representative democracy, if you don’t like the decisions being made on your behalf, you can vote the decision maker out of office. Hence the terms government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Sign the Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of the ACLU.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board
N.B. While I’m not in complete agreement with Gribbit’s latter comments (I raised two teenagers, and can testify that I know of one time when they were mostly unsupervised for a whole month, for perfectly good reasons, and they were very responsible people during that time. Ages? 15 and 17. BUT, whether teenagers in general are or are not well-behaved (something that it is entirely the responsibility of the parents to ensure by raising them well before they reach that age), is not the point here, nor is the serious point that the ACLU will sweep in with “men in black” to rip our freedoms away. No, the point as far as I’m concerned is the twisting of Constitutional provisions into something they are not, thus weakening the fabric of the Constitution even further and not coincidentally weakening the fabric of society at the same time.
David
At 17 I was sitting off of North Korea on an aircraaft carrier. There was no need for curfew for work was darn near around the clock. Not a bad suggestion for A.C.L.U. type to try -they might learn the true cost of freedom and what it really means to be oppressed.
just an fyi:
— You most likely don’t live in Trafford, where there is no rampant running of children causing havoc after dark. There are no terribly serious crimes, and most of the town is generally quiet, save for a small part away from where we live.
–I’m not saying kids should be running free all over the place at night. But they SHOULD be allowed to walk home after watching football at 10:10, and, even if it’s a bit retarded, to go to 7-11 three blocks away at midnight, as long as there’s no drug-dealing, vandalism, or such along the way. 11 or 12 would be a more understandable curfew anyway.
–This isn’t the “need of one” outweighing the needs of many; it’s happened to others, only one person has involved the ACLU.
–Seeing as there was no harm being done or intended in either post-10:00 outing, the 2 fines totaling $171 is ridiculous! And since there is effectively no chance to argue against a curfew violation, it violates the whole ?due process? bit of the constitution.
–What the town wants to do is create a “no tolerance policy” where if you’re out past 10:00, it must be assumed you’re causing trouble, and you must be fined. What the ordinance was TRYING to do is create a valid reason to catch kids for other crimes. i.e., if you have drugs on you, they can’t just search you then and there. But if you’re out past 10, then you’re breaking one law, so they can search you and nab you for another. It’s like the seat-belt law: they can’t arrest you for just not wearing a seatbelt, but if something else is also wrong, say your tail-light is out, they can get your for both. Ok, so if you’re out past 10, then sure, question the person, sure! But as NOTHING was being done wrong in either case, no fine is just.
–Minors can drive (PA law dictates those with Jr licenses can be out to 11), pay taxes (if they work) — and can’t marry, buy cigarettes, get tattoos without consent, etc because those actions involve long-term consequences which are not present with the BUYING of a SLURPEE. And don’t even try to relate this to buying a semi-automatic weapon, there’s noooo way! Speaking of driving, evidently you could drive around causing havoc after 10, but not walk causing havoc. What the heck?
–While they can crack down on minors walking outside during the night-time, the curfew can?t cut down on the offenses of non-minors. The curfew won’t significantly stop any juvenile crime we might have in this town any more than using common sense or increased police presence in areas targeted to have problems.
–(rant) 10:00 is quite early considering that teens tend to stay up until 12 at least, especially in the summer. This is due to changes in hormones, and it’s proven that this is not necessarily voluntary – kids CANNOT fall asleep too early or wake up too early in teenage years, which has lots to do with lower school performance, but anyway…. what are they supposed to do from 10 till going to sleep? You can’t go to your friend’s because you can’t walk home past 10. (By the way, being able to walk places easily is one of the nice things of living in a not-so-suburban like Trafford. This sort of takes that away from kids who have no cars and such) We used to all gather in the church parking lot and play a game of release in the summer. We never wanted to quit at 10, but did it at least because we caused some noise, what with all our running and merriment. Then we would go to someone?s house and hang out a bit. But since you evidently can?t walk home, not even 10 minutes past curfew for a entirely good reason, what else can we do? We?re already good enough at gluing ourselves to computer screens and TV sets, or we could do illegal things inside someone?s house.
–About the whole conspiracy-communist-state thing, the fact that you can?t even walk home past 10 is reminiscent of communist states. And you also forgot to include the last half of the article, including, [ordinance fails to curtail crimes committed by those younger and older than 18. ?If they thought a curfew would solve any problems, why stop with age 18? Why not make everyone be in their homes by 6 p.m. to stop crimes,? he said on Monday. ?But then, this wouldn’t be America, would it??]
Also [police could effectively enforce it by filing other charges ? such as loitering ? against juveniles.]. A few weeks ago, a kid I know was nabbed for ?disorderly conduct? (disorderly in the sense that he was standing upon a set of stairs), since the police were likely hesitant to make it due to a curfew violation. Not only is this a ridiculous charge since no harm was being done, but disorderly conduct charges carry stronger penalties than a curfew violation, marking a kid?s permanent record for doing NOTHING WRONG!
BTW: our family is conservative, and I also have a disdain for the ACLU.
FYI, Craig,
1.) You obviously didn’t read the post. Go back and catch the author, then re-address your remarks.
2.) Your last statement is obviously false, no matter whether you believe it true or not.
3.) Check my own followp comments, which I’ll revise and extend in light of your remarks:
a.) None of the excuses you give for violating the law hold any more water than me excusing breaking traffic laws just because I may want to.
b.) ” if you?re out past 10, then sure, question the person, sure! But as NOTHING was being done wrong in either case, no fine is just.” B.S. Wouldn’t apply to me (you used “if YOU’RE out”–sloppy thinking there, bubba), since I’m not a minor. And there WAS something being done wrong: the kid was breaking the law by breaking curfew. Law broken: fine assessed. Correct action. The kid and his parents knew the law. He had even LESS excuse the second time. And the parent was completely responsible for the 10:10 violation. Had he wanted to teach his son to obey the law, he’d have gone to pick him up. The entire “it’s not fair” argument is pure B.S.
c.) “?While they can crack down on minors walking outside during the night-time, the curfew can?t cut down on the offenses of non-minors. ” Irrelevant. Another red herring argument.
d.) ” it?s proven that this is not necessarily voluntary – kids CANNOT fall asleep too early or wake up too early in teenage years” Again: irrelevant. So they’re awake. Big deal. The law says NOTHING about them having to be asleep at 10:00. Another red herring.
e.) “If they thought a curfew would solve any problems, why stop with age 18?” Another red herring. The kid broke the law. If you want to change the law, then fine. Work toward that.
f.) Your penultimate statement repeats a previous fallacious argument and serves as the best impeachment of your argument: “…a curfew violation, marking a kid?s permanent record for doing NOTHING WRONG!”
The “nothing wrong” the kid did was wittingly violate curfew. The second time he violated the law _with his parents’ knowledge and consent_–meaning they aided him in breaking the law.
That’s not responsible parenting. It’s teaching the kid that he can pick and choose which laws to obey.
Sure, why not? We should all pick and choose the laws we obey, shouldn’t we?
I notice you didn’t manage to slip in the spurious arguments made by the ACLU in this case. Must have been an oversight on your part, since any one of their twisted applications of “rights” are each and every one better than any of the fake arguments you made.
And the ACLU’s arguments would be laughed out of court by the Founders and Framers–as anyone who has read what they actually said would know.
Come here and spout purely emotional fallacies in place of reason and you can expect absolutely no respect. Argue from reason. Otherwise STFU.
Every single solitary line of your argument makes a lie of your final statement.
Does a responsible parent know where their teenage (well, any minor age) kid is and with whom and what they are doing 24/7?
Yes.
Do you?
I’d bet not.
(Did I? Well, yes. And my son and daughter have turned out to be responsible adults who know to obey the laws and work to change the bad ones. But obey the laws nonetheless.)
Come back when you are a responsible parent. From your fallacy-laden comment, it’s obvious you are not, regardless of what you may think.
And conservative? Not with your demonstrated inability to think rationally. All of your arguments are the fallacy-laden arguments of fake liberals.
*N.B.–you’ll note?or perhaps, given your demonstrably sloppy reading and reasoning abilities, you did not?in my personal remarks, in italics, added to Gribbit’s words, that I mention a period of time when my children, ages 15 and 17 at the time operated essentially independently for an extended period of time. I still knew where they were, what they were doing and with whom at all hours of the day, while we waited for their mother to pull through… and I was 24-7 at the hospital. Were there curfews in the three towns they needed to be in or pass through during that time? Yes, in two of them. Did they violate those curfews? No. Why? Because they knew their responsibilities.
1. I realize that YOU did not write this article. The same article was posted on about 10 other blogs and I put pretty much the same thing on each one, so their readers would understand the larger context of the situation and not just hate this because they hate the ACLU.
2. You don’t know me! (ha.) And, well, the only evidence you have is from this issue! You can judge by the “conservative” of 30 years ago, but realize that today is, indeed, not 30 years ago.
My overall point is this: the curfew in Trafford, PA in its current state, considering the present situation there, is neither just, fair, nor constitutional.
If you don’t know the place, you are in no place to judge what its laws should be.
Here’s a brief history so you can understand what’s going on here:
The curfew violator (my brother) broke a curfew that has not been enforced in such a manner the past, so the results were somewhat unforeseeable.
The curfew ordinance on the books does not designate a specific fine for violations, just that cases would be referred to a youth council. I don’t know weather this is what took place or not in the ruling of the fines against my brother.
The curfew began to be enforced more recently due to complaints from people in one part of town about crime. Not all this crime is juvenile-related; likely, most is not. They began to enforce it more heavily so that they could try to catch kids for breaking other laws in addition to curfew (this is when I refer to the seat-belt law in my first post). It was not the intent of the law originally (the 80?s when it was written), nor in its new form to make it illegal for minors to be outside after 10, which is what is now going on. Making it illegal for minors to be outside at all after 10 is what I have a complaint about.
If they want to catch kids doing bad things, all the police have to do is pay attention more. If there is a kid in the middle of the road, that is illegal (blocking traffic). If there is a kid harassing someone, that is illegal. If there is a kid vandalizing or selling drugs, or doing drugs, or causing havoc of any kind that might disrupt others or cause harm to them, their property, or public property, that is illegal.
If someone walks on the sidewalks going to buy a Slurpee or go home while committing no other offences against anyone, that is not (or at least should not be) illegal.
Now,
Concerning your part ?a,? the kid was walking about 800 feet, straight to home, at a very reasonable hour, causing no trouble. I can understand the ?fool me once?? idea that it may be his own fault for knowingly being out at all past 10. It very well could be his own fault. I still think it?s a retarded law if it?s to go that far, when any time in the past it would not have happened in such a manner. (You may not wish to read the following,, as you may find it to be another ?red-herring.? I, however, find it to be at least a little relevant to the whole situation, as I understand fully what that is.) [On a related note, the borough is quite pressed for cash anymore, and they?ve instituted a ?no tolerance policy? where they are trying to nab anyone for anything. Lots of people think they?re just looking to get some money to make up for wasteful spending and to keep them out of bankruptcy. This is perhaps why such events are becoming more common. Also, the curfew in this enforced state could be seen as unconstitutional, prohibiting non-offensive actions such as peaceable assembly and such]
Concerning part ?b:? first about the word choice of if you?re out. I think it?s very clear that I meant, ?if one is out,? not that I was referring to you, David, in particular. It?s quite commonly accepted, at least in America, that you can use the pronoun ?you? for the ambiguous ?one.? And the further argument that ?it?s not fair? would go back to the fact that I believe the curfew thing to be a bunch of crap, because the government should not make it illegal to do something unless you?re (I mean, one is) encroaching upon the rights and liberties of others in the process. Again, though the curfew is currently an ordinance (though presently a perverted one), just being outside alone does not encroaching upon the rights and liberties of others unless you?re doing something else that is illegal.
About part ?c,? this my statement refers to how curfew is also an improper ordinance because it fails to stop crime, specifically among non-minors since they don?t fall into its jurisdiction anyway.
About part ?d,? which I did admit as being a rant, I?m saying that kids tend to stay up later, and even if they?re not outside, but rather inside a friend?s house, they can?t walk home if possible (nor technically drive home). This is related to the PA junior license thing as well, as PA Jr. License holders can, by state law, drive till 11, but cannot, then, technically drive through the Borough of Trafford past 10. Nor can I technically pick up my brother, as he may only be accompanied by a legal guardian according to the ordinance.
[Red-herring alert!: Sure, you could say it?s the parents? responsibility, but why must it be? See this is what?s wrong with America. You make everything the parents? responsibility, which some of it should be, they NEED to raise their kids properly and such, but then responsibility must fall on the kid, where they should have at least enough responsibility to walk home after dark, but if they do something to encroach upon the rights and liberties of others in the process, be punished for that. This would likely be a non-issue in Europe, where kids would probably be expected to get themselves home as you would be more able to walk/use public transport there, versus the lack we have here, due to a long history of making poor urban planning choices. What parent wants to be a chauffer all the time? Why should they be? (Sorry, this is just the architect/urban planner in me going off on a tangent. When I begin thinking of one topic like curfew, I can?t help but relate other things in society to it also; this is likely why everything seems as a red-herring to you. But to me, it?s just a longer answer explaining the extended consequences of everything we do in the world on everything else in the world.)]
About part ?e,? I?m glad you understand what I?ve been trying to say! I?m not saying he?s innocent in light of the curfew ordinance necessarily, but that the curfew ordinance is wrong, since he?s being punished for not ?encroaching upon the rights and liberties of others? (like I?ve been saying all through here; I always assumed that laws were meant to protect the rights and liberties of others, while the curfew law does not serve that purpose.)
Concerning your part ?f,? you misinterpreted what was said. My first post noted that now that the borough has the ACLU looming over them (not necessarily a good thing anymore), they are hesitant to give a ?curfew? violation, so they might try to make it some other violation ? in the case I was referring to, they made a ?disorderly conduct? case out of nothing, but it was all they could get considering they didn?t want to use the curfew violation. A little legal loop-hole of sorts. This is unjust.
Here?s another side-note for you: Borough councilmen get paid $50 a month. Not too much financial prerogative to be accountable to the people in order to stay elected.
Now, let me say that I agree with most of what you say concerning the ACLU. However, considering that we could get their support to help spur the argument over curfew in Trafford for free, as we would in no other way be able to fight a legal case financially, I suppose my father went with that. I know, when I first heard he did that I sighed and said ?Nooooo.? I?m not agreeing with the ACLU, which I suppose is why you think I?m a moron. I?m disagreeing with curfew and the ACLU had spurred the fight against it and effectively started this whole argument, which may have otherwise not have gone on so fiercely. I know curfew has been argued about for years now, but not so much as now. At least we got discussion started, and isn?t such discussion what having a local-rule democracy is about? Is the ACLU corrupt? Yes. But so is most of the government and almost everyone else that holds power in this country. We should work to fix them both.
Also, we don?t really want the borough sued, which would be terrrrrrrible. We just need some initiative for them. Just like the politicians and lobbyists do all the time in DC.
And does a responsible parent know what their kids are doing 24/7? I?d be nice, but likely not. That?s quite impossible unless they follow them everywhere, at least for part of their life till they train them. You may not know it, and it might have not been that bad, but they most likely did something bad that you probably didn?t find out about, bet you any money. Having been in that position not too long ago, I know from personal experience and from friends, even those whose parents think they?re saints.
Lastly, from my father, who you likely thought I was:
Mr. Toocheck, Scoutmaster, Father and small business owner said ( 9:11 PM Saturday, May 13):
“Start brain before engaging mouth.” For anyone to comment, said anyone SHOULD know what they speak of. It’s common to express ones FEELINGS, but feelings don’t always express facts. Permit me to help you. Concerning the United States Constitution, Amendment 1 states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 4 states: (briefly) …AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURES… 5 states (briefly): NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY… 9 states (IMPORTANT!): THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE. Last, but not least, Amendment 14 states (briefly): ALL PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ARE citizens of the United States and of the State in wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States… This is to say youth too! (READ IT FOR YOURSELF PEOPLE AND BECOME INFORMED!) My child broke a “house rule” by going for a Slushee without letting us know and was punished for it. Parents are the ultimate LAW when it comes to their own children. The state or local municipality should in NO WAY interfere with the way a parent morally and lawfully raises their children. Also, we OBEY the law, as a very thoughtful and courteous Judge observed. The Judge stated, If you don’t agree with the law, don’t just break it, have it changed. We are going about having it PROPERLY changed. PARENT YOUR CHILD PROPERLY AND WHEN THEY GROW UP, THEY WON’T DEPART FROM THE PROPER TEACHINGS YOU PROVIDED! Duh, People! Thomas Jefferson wrote “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.” AND “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Heed his wise words, for this is what America is about, Liberty for ALL. God Bless the USA.
N.M.B. You don?t have to be rude about it! Being called a liberal hurts!
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further inquiries, or correct me if you believe you know the story better than I. I hope this is all up to your grammar/syntax standards. Peace be with you.