Los Angeles’ daytime curfew pushes students away from school and diverts resources away from real community safety.
In 1995, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance establishing a daytime curfew for the city’s youth. Promulgated as Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) § 45.04, the law as currently written makes it unlawful, with limited exceptions, for any youth under the age of 18 to be in a public place during hours of the day when the youth’s school is in session. Between 2005 and 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles School Police Department (LASPD) issued more than 47,000 tickets under the ordinance.
This report – based on a review of scientific research, interviews with and surveys of thousands of students, and data obtained from LAPD, LASPD, and other public agencies – argues that LAMC § 45.04 is a fundamentally misguided policy. The curfew, which has increasingly been used as an enforcement tool to improve student attendance, in fact causes students to miss school. The curfew’s economic burdens – which include hefty fines, missed days of school to attend court hearings, and lost earnings by parents who must accompany their children to court – fall most heavily on low-income communities and families that are least able to afford them. And the law has been applied in a manner that disproportionately affects black and Latino youth, who have been issued curfew citations under LAMC § 45.04 in numbers that far exceed their percentage of the population – a fact which, among others, exposes the city and other agencies to legal liability.
Moreover, substantial research shows that curfew laws are ineffective in achieving their stated purpose of reducing crime. LAMC § 45.04 diverts resources away from addressing serious crime, forcing police to address student attendance matters which are properly addressed by schools and families, not the penal system.
Date
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 - 12:00am
Featured image
Show featured image
Hide banner image
Related issues
Education Equity
Documents
Show related content
Tweet Text
[node:title]
Type
Menu parent dynamic listing
Style
Standard with sidebar
California’s prison system has become a revolving door. Evidence-based alternatives to incarceration will reduce recidivism rates.
California is at a criminal justice crossroads. After decades of “tough on crime” policies and draconian sentencing practices, the state correctional system—one of the largest incarcerators in the largest incarcerating country in the world—finally buckled under its own weight. Faced with a historic U.S. Supreme Court order requiring the state to reduce overcrowding, California made a momentous decision: it would no longer take into state facilities or under state custody most people convicted of low-level, non-violent offenses, instead tasking counties with dealing with these individuals at the local level.
Legislatively codified as the Public Safety Realignment Act, or Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), this major policy shift has put California’s 58 counties in the driver’s seat. Each county will choose its own path, but their futures are intertwined. Poor implementation in one county will inevitably affect others. All will affect California taxpayers.
The ACLU has conducted an in-depth review of all 53 available county realignment implementation plans, and we have analyzed the statutory changes and related state laws and budget allocations.
Date
Thursday, March 1, 2012 - 12:00am
Featured image
Show featured image
Hide banner image
Documents
Show related content
Tweet Text
[node:title]
Type
Menu parent dynamic listing
Style
Standard with sidebar
This report compiles some 64 sworn statements from inmates, former inmates and civilian eyewitnesses taken since 2009, describing attacks in which deputies targeted inmates’ heads.
Correctional officers should strike inmates’ heads only as a matter of last resort. But in the Los Angeles County Jails, that is not the reality.
As explained in this report, there is clear evidence that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) deputies have used head strikes with alarming regularity in the Los Angeles County jails. In many of those incidents the head strikes have caused significant injuries. The manner and frequency of such head strikes strongly suggests an inappropriate use of force by deputies.
Sixty-four people have made sworn statements describing incidents in which deputies targeted inmates’ heads for attack between 2009 and 2012. These are not mere unsubstantiated complaints. The ACLU has corroborated 12 of these allegations of head injuries with secondary evidence, such as medical records, photographic documentation, or civilian reports. In several other instances, inmate witnesses have corroborated reports of deputy-on-inmate head strikes.
Date
Saturday, September 1, 2012 - 12:00am
Featured image
Show featured image
Hide banner image
Related issues
Police Practices
Documents
Show related content
Tweet Text
[node:title]
Type
Menu parent dynamic listing
Style
Standard with sidebar
Pages
