Wow. I didn't know Las Vegas had a curfew...

[TheCotMan]

Found this while looking for another city ordinance:

http://ordlink.com/cgi-bin/hilite.pl/codes/lasvegas/_DATA/TITLE10/Chapter_10_54_CURFEW.html?

10.54.010 Hours designated.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any child under the age of eighteen years, without being on any lawful business or engaged in any lawful occupation, not accompanied by one of his parents or his guardian, or other adult person having legal care, custody and control of said child, to loiter, idle, wander or stroll or be upon, in or about any of the public streets, avenues, alleys or other public places in the City at any time between the hours of ten p.m., Sunday through Thursday and five a.m. of the succeeding day, and between the hours of twelve midnight on Friday and Saturday and five a.m. of the succeeding day; provided, however, the Sheriff of the Metropolitan Police Department or his designee shall be empowered to extend the curfew on special occasions to such hour as shall be designated by him.

The next part looks a little better:

(B) On all school holidays and during the days of summer vacation, said curfew shall be between the hours of twelve midnight and five a.m. for all citizens under the age of eighteen years.

Dang.

[Deviant Ollam]

how is crap like this legal? i don't understand how municipalities can restrict freedom of movement with such a broad brush. just because you're under 18 doesn't mean that the freedoms of the constitution go totally out the window.

[TheCotMan]

how is crap like this legal? i don't understand how municipalities can restrict freedom of movement with such a broad brush. just because you're under 18 doesn't mean that the freedoms of the constitution go totally out the window.

I don't think I have ever seen this enforced in Las Vegas-- ever. I've seen parents give their kids (12-17 years old) money to play games and walk around on the strip on their own to explore while they (the parents) go gamble. I've seen this at night too.

I figured I would post this here, because we do have people under 18 that attend the con, and they might want to at least know about this, so they know what to avoid if it is a problem now.

[theprez98]

how is crap like this legal? i don't understand how municipalities can restrict freedom of movement with such a broad brush. just because you're under 18 doesn't mean that the freedoms of the constitution go totally out the window.
Restrictions on constitutional freedoms are subject to a number of court-administered tests, among them, rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. For example, the concept of strict scrutiny is applied to "fundamental" constitutional rights (whatever that means):
(1) the law must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
(2) the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
(3) the law must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
If a court decides that a law meets these three prongs, the law is generally considered constitutional.
Interestingly enough, if you google "curfew laws" you'll find that some have been in fact found unconstitutional for various reasons.

[Chris]

I don't think I have ever seen this enforced in Las Vegas-- ever. I've seen parents give their kids (12-17 years old) money to play games and walk around on the strip on their own to explore while they (the parents) go gamble. I've seen this at night too.



I have seen this as well...and it is one of the saddest and most pitiful things I have ever seen. WTF is wrong with people?

[cjunky]

you think those ordinance's are bad?

Under the "Recognition of Borders Act, 1772" I am obliged to kill any welshmen I see crossing the border into england if I suspect they are trying to take goods to a weekend market.

Confusing?

Its worse when I visit chester becuase then the city ordinances say Im only allowed to kill them on a sunday, after midnight and only if I find them within the city walls.

Oh and im only allowed to use a longbow then too.

Cj

[hackajar]

Trust me, you want this enforced in Las Vegas, at least on the strip. There has been a huge surge in crime on the Strip involving under aged "pandering" around stores and casino's.

They do enforce this a lot. (My first DC, 8, I was carded on the strip).

Freedom of movement does not fully count unless your with an adult (legal guardian, et al), if this was the case, they could not enforce Rated R and Rated X age limits.

I have not seen any problems when you stay in the hotel (and don't piss off hotel staff) in the past.

[Deviant Ollam]

Freedom of movement does not fully count unless you're with an adult (legal guardian, et al), if this was the case, they could not enforce Rated R and Rated X age limits.i'm sorry... but i have to wave the "constitutional shenanigans" penalty flag on that one. there is no age limit regarding constitutional protections or compromise. we stopped recognizing laws declaring some parts of the population as only fractional citizens long, long ago.

that cinema establishments deny entry to certain features on the basis of age is a policy enacted by private businesses who have the right to exclude or accept the ticket money from whomever they wish. it's an industry-created standard, not a law.

whether a city has a crime problem or whether grey-hairs are merely "unsettled" by the young kids' rock and roll... neither situation merits the blanket exclusion of people from public accommodations. damn, i hate when governments try to be parents. i realize that this seems more and more necessary in a world where less and less parenting actually takes place everyday, but i still don't agree with it. if i were a parent in vegas i'd likely write up a note that says "my child is out running an errand for me, don't fuck with him" and sign it without including a date. a nice "get out of hassles" token in a world with curfews. of course, if i had kids they would be raised properly and not be the cause of the troubles which bring about curfew nonsense in the first place.

[theprez98]

i'm sorry... but i have to wave the "constitutional shenanigans" penalty flag on that one. there is no age limit regarding constitutional protections or compromise. we stopped recognizing laws declaring some parts of the population as only fractional citizens long, long ago.
I don't mean this to be a political response...I cite a few political issues only as examples of age limits, not attempting to actually discuss those issues in any detail. :wink: I'm curious what you would think about the following:
<devil's advocate>
What about the right to vote, which is in fact a constitutionally authorized age limit?

What about the constitutional requirements to hold office (25 for House, 30 for Senate, 35 for President)?

What about the legal age limit to consume alcoholic beverages?

What about the legal age to be able to purchase a handgun? By extension of your argument, anyone (even a child) should be able to purchase a handgun because children shouldn't be fractional citizens and of course who are we to limit their 2nd Amendment rights. On the other hand, if you support a reasonable age limit, you're doing just what the courts have done--recognize that there is a compelling government interest to limit the purchase of handguns to a certain age...
</devil's advocate>

[Chris]

if i had kids they would be raised properly and not be the cause of the troubles which bring about curfew nonsense in the first place.


Hmm...I think this is a naive view. Usually when you make a statement, even if others don't agree with your viewpoint they have to concede that the statement is supported by fact or at least a solid foundation for your opinion.

This one, not so much. I completely agree that parents need to do more parenting, but to think that unruly children are solely the product of poor parenting is just not the case. Sometimes parents do the best job possible and kids still have problems...lots of them. That whole free will, their own person thing getting in the way again.

[theprez98]

I completely agree that parents need to do more parenting, but to think that unruly children are solely the product of poor parenting is just not the case. Sometimes parents do the best job possible and kids still have problems...lots of them. That whole free will, their own person thing getting in the way again.
I have to agree with this 100%, largely based on experience. :wink:

[Deviant Ollam]

<devil's advocate>What about the right to vote, which is in fact a constitutionally authorized age limit? What about the constitutional requirements to hold office (25 for House, 30 for Senate, 35 for President)? What about the legal age limit to consume alcoholic beverages? What about the legal age to be able to purchase a handgun?...</devil's advocate>well, i suspect you've got me a bit there.

i suppose if i were forced to defend my position (which i'll admit came off somewhat harsh in my above post) i would attempt to delineate actions on the part of a citizen which have definitive, direct impact upon others' lives versus actions or life choices which have no such guaranteed impact upon others.

holding elected office (and, consequently, electing people to such offices) is by its very nature an act of authority and assertion of control which has very real impact upon policy, law, and the lives of other citizens. it makes sense that such things have an age restriction, as you wouldn't want policy being dictated by people who haven't reached a socially-accepted level of maturity and learning. (no presidential jokes, please, people)

consumption of intoxicants and ownership of lethal weapons is a more difficult needle to thread, since there is no guarantee that a drunk person will be a menace or that an armed person will pose a threat to others... but, again, the potential for these things is very great, particularly if the person involved is of limited faculties or maturity. (note that we also restrict things like gun ownership in cases of people found by a court to be mentally deficient... a very real and rational protection)

merely "being outside" however, in places of public congregation... this is not an act where one is asserting direct power over others. this is not a delicate matter filled with increased risks that can cause harm to others if handled improperly. for this reason i defend my original indignation regarding blanket curfews. i feel that restrictions upon people's freedom are only rightly imposed when there is a clear and demonstrable potential for harm or societal suffering in their absence.

in this case (and granted, i'm speaking as someone who lives miles away from vegas and has only seen the strip a handful of times... during defcons past) i would feel that the suffering of society (in the form of restriction of freedom) would be greater than any potential benefit (in the form of adults not being hassled by kids' loud music or pickpocketing or whatever is bothering old people on the vegas strip)

if some of the kids out there are committing crimes... actual crimes like theft, pushing drugs, panhandling, etc then police and private casino security officers can enforce the law and bring the perpetrators to justice. (something i could support would be a curfew for juveniles who have been found guilty of such actions. "if you have a record you can't be hanging out with your friends" could be a policy i would support. enforcing it is harder, of course, i'll admit)

[hackajar]

for this reason i defend my original indignation regarding blanket curfews. i feel that restrictions upon people's freedom are only rightly imposed when there is a clear and demonstrable potential for harm or societal suffering in their absence.

Here are some links to articles in which under aged people were DIRECTlY involved with crimes on the strip. "demonstrable potential for harm" should be met, I imagine.

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2007/03/15/inter2.html
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/May-20-Sat-2006/news/7516126.html

[Deviant Ollam]

Here are some links to articles in which under aged people were DIRECTLY involved with crimes on the strip. "demonstrable potential for harm" should be met, I imagine.well, i didn't see specific mention in the first article about people being underage... nor do i see mention of the strip. it's about parking lots. there are common-sense solutions to keeping lots safe (outlined in the article) but they have little to do with restricting the freedom of movement of minors.

as for the second article, i think there's already laws and policies in place against massive, unruly, armed mobs from wandering place to place while mugging and shooting people. and even at a size of 30+ strong, that's barely a drop in the bucket compared to the population of law-abiding, perfectly safe people under the age of 18. you can't tell 99% of kids that they have to sit at home and dick around on myspace or playing xbox just because a fraction of the population (who i still didn't see solid evidence of being under 18 in the second article) are criminal fuckheads.

personally i'd handle matters like those described in the second article by reforming concealed carry legislation... but i tend to throw that solution out a whole, whole lot of the time and am often in the minority when i do. :wink:

crime is a real bitch, and there are no easy answers.

[hackajar]

This is true, there are no easy answers.

The problem with the strip, is the pandering by under age kids. They can't blow their money in the casino's, yet the lights attract them there, thus 30+ kids.

My liberaterian (sp?) roots tell me that, as long as no one else is being harmed, then to each his own. The strip, effects our economy, peoples personal welfare. If kids cannot control themselfs, then it's my local gov's job to protect the states interest, that interest being the people.

[Deviant Ollam]

The problem with the strip, is the pandering by under age kids.you'd mentioned this once before, but i am unclear slightly. do you mean pan-handling as in begging for change? i don't understand where pandering would enter into it, as casinos aren't likely to pander to a crowd who can't spend their money there.

If kids cannot control themselfs, then it's my local gov's job to protect the states interest, that interest being the people.and i'm all for the local gov, through the LVPD primarily, choosing to tell loiterers to move along, to detain and/or write up pan-handlers (or even people busking if that's illegal, too, laws vary a lot) and so forth. but i am not tolerant of hassling people who haven't committed a crime and aren't directly harming others.

[hackajar]

pander - Pandering is established when the evidence shows that the accused succeeded in inducing a victim to become an inmate of a house of prostitution. One who solicits for a prostitute is a panderer.

And of course loitering causes lots of problems too.

/Sorry if this turned into a crazed debate, Deviant, living here has changed my perspective on this subject (and probably just getting older I guess).

[[Syntax]]

I knew there was a curfew in effect, but as far as I know it is only in effect on the strip itself. According to the section you posted it says all avenues alleys ect..

According to articles I read it seems that this was put into effect to try and cut gang activity. Possibly its not enforced but instead used as a reason for stopping suspicious minors. If you just randomly stop someone and start giving them a hard time, your gonna get opposition from the parents. However if you stop someone for whatever reason, and have this law to fall back on, your no longer having to explain why you stopped them in the first place.

It could just be an escape for them.

I found this though while searching.. its like common sense stuff..
What to do if stopped by police in North Las Vegas (http://www.cityofnorthlasvegas.org/Departments/PIO/PDFs/PDStopbyPoliceBrochure.pdf)
"Why are the Police at my home?"



We have a curfew here in San Antonio, with similar hours, however ours also includes 9:30 to 2:30 durring the day on school days, and holds the parents liable for allowing minors to violate the curfew.

[Deviant Ollam]

comply with procedures for a search. you may be subjected to a pat-down search if the officer has reasonable suspicion that you may be carrying a weapon or illegal substanceanyone else want to talk with me about current interpretations of the 4th amdenment? my understanding is that quick detentions and accompanying pat-downs (Terry Stops) are permissible only in the context of the officer's (or society's) immediate safety, i.e. if there is reasonable suspicion that a suspect has a weapon or is planning to cause imminent harm to someone (say, they're casing a joint for a robbery)

quick pat-downs for drugs or other illegal substances are not allowed. in fact, although i can't cite the exact case law off the top of my head, i think there has been at least one matter which escalated all the way to the Supreme Court in which an officer was conducting a weapons pat-down, felt something that could have potentially been drugs or drug paraphernalia in a pocket, then continued to poke, prod, and feel it for a while. eventually the officer determined it was very likely something drug-related, at which point he reached in, sized it, and eventually arrested the suspect. the Court held that this was illegal, since the drugs weren't in "plain touch" and had to be poked and prodded a good deal, and that the scope of the initial Terry pat-down was (and always is, i think the court said) to look for weapons only.

the Court held that the moment that the officer made the determination that it wasn't a weapon he was feeling was the moment that the pat-down should have proceeded to other parts of the suspect's person.

as i say, i am no lawyer and i could be wrong... but i thought quick Terry pat-downs were exclusively weapons searches. the pamphlet, i feel, may have things a touch wrong.

[theprez98]

anyone else want to talk with me about current interpretations of the 4th amdenment?
Time to break out the books...I'll try to put something together and post it later today.

[Thorn]

Last training I had on Terry -admittedly it's been a while- the reason for the pat down was weapons only.* However, if in the course of the pat down you encountered something that might be contraband based on training, experience, and the totality of the circumstances, and contemporaneous events,** then you were allowed to investigate further. e.g. Checking to see if that wadded up mass in the pocket is a handkerchief or drugs in a baggie. The further investigation for contraband is usually allowed under United States v. Sokolow.

*Under Terry the "sole justification" for a stop and frisk is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby" according to the US Supreme Court.

**The Supreme Court has decided in Brown v. Texas and several other cases said that LEOs may be "able to perceive and articulate meaning in given conduct which would be wholly innocent to the untrained observer." Usually the factors are the training, experience, and the time and circumstances of the encounter.

[Nobody]

..my understanding is that quick detentions and accompanying pat-downs (Terry Stops) are permissible only in the context of the officer's (or society's) immediate safety...

Hey, Dev. You've seen how I dress, what and how I drive and with whom I hang out. Oh, and I used to work at the County Jail there in Vegas. So, in my experience most folks on foot get the Terry and most cops wear body armor.

As a Vegas native and ex-local, I've been pulled over a LOT. And before I get into my list of personal stories about unpleasant interactions with law enforcement...

Vegas is full of weirdos and criminals. I'm sorry I can't make it back home this year. :/