Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Park

DATE TYPED 2/28/2005 HB 471/aHGUAC

SHORT TITLE Curfew Enforcement Act

SB

ANALYST Dunbar

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

NFI

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Attorney General (AG)

NM Public Education Department (NMPED)

Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

NM Department of Corrections (NMDC)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Amendment

The House Government and Urban Affairs Committee amendment to House Bill 471 provides

for:

•

A definition of a family education program,

•

Procedures for a law enforcement officer to follow in questioning a child for a curfew

violation. The questions are limited to determination of identity, age, address, phone

number, the name address of the child’s parents and or guardians. The officer must also

determine if the child qualifies for one of the exceptions of the Act.

•

Clarifying language when a child has permission to be outside the home and away from

the direct supervision of the child parents or guardians.

•

Citations to be issued to the parent or guardians for curfew violations (child will also be

cited),

•

Data that is collected to include information on race, age, and sex of child and shall not

include any personal information such as photographs, tattoos, name or home address by

which a child or family could be identified.

House Bill 471/aHGUAC Page 2

•

A delayed repealed of July 1, 2009.

Synopsis of Original Bill

House Bill 471 enacts the Curfew Enforcement Act within the Children’s Code to protect chil-

dren from dangerous circumstances. The Curfew Enforcement Act ("Act") provides that a mu-

nicipality or county may enact a curfew ordinance applicable to children under 16 years of age

during the time period between 12:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., if the municipality or county estab-

lishes a family education program that provides information about the curfew and the availability

of community services.

The bill contains four exceptions that an ordinance would have to include: (1) activities author-

ized by a school, religious organization or community organization; (2) verified employ-

ment/work-related errand; (3) parental permission; and (4) an emergency.

The Act provides for enforcement through issuance of a warning to the child for the first viola-

tion and issuance of a citation to the child for the second violation, which requires that the family

attend a family education program. Upon issuance of a second citation (third violation) the offi-

cer shall also call the CYFD juvenile justice call center and attempt to contact the parents or le-

gal guardian. Citations are subject to appeal to a hearing officer appointed by CYFD. If the

family does not attend the family education program or in the event of a third or subsequent vio-

lation, the child shall be referred to CYFD for assessment of whether the child is an abused or

neglected child. The Act provides that CYFD shall adopt rules for collection of data on curfew

ordinances and report annually to the legislature.

The Act contains definitions for an "abused child" and "neglected child."

Significant Issues

Because the law has so many exceptions, PED expresses concern that law enforcement will be

put in the difficult position of determining whether a child has a proper note from his parent,

church or school. Not clear is how law enforcement can or must verify if a child is excused from

being issued a citation for violating the act without taking the child into custody. Also, if a par-

ent or guardian at a violation hearing can simply say he/she gave his/her child permission to be

out after midnight, the express purpose of the act would be defeated.

PED also raises issues about a municipality’s exposure to civil liability if law enforcement issues

a citation to a minor who is later injured or killed because the child was not taken into custody.

The bill does not permit the taking of minors into custody, which has its own risks. See, ACLU

v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMSC-044, (Invalidating a curfew ordinance geared toward mi-

nors that permitted taking them into custody because the ordinance was preempted by the Delin-

quency Act of the Children’s Code.)

PED believes that the legislation will inevitably lead to confrontations between law enforcement

and minors that will implicate the search and seizure guarantees of the Fourth Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. Lawsuits will fol-

low when minors are taken into custody after being stopped by law enforcement ostensibly to

enforce the act. See, State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018, (Suppressing the search and seizure of

a handgun from a 15-year-old walking with a friend at night about whom the Court concluded

House Bill 471/aHGUAC Page 3

there was not sufficient individualized suspicion regarding criminal behavior.); Eli L., 1997-

NMCA-109, (Officers must possess "at the time the Child was stopped . . . reasonable individu-

alized suspicion that the Child had committed or was about to commit a crime."); United States

v. Little, 60 F.3d 708, 712 (10th Cir. 1995) (Questions asked in an accusatory, persistent, and in-

trusive manner can make an otherwise voluntary encounter . . . coercive.); United States v. San-

chez, 89 F.3d 715, 718 (10th Cir. 1996) (Stating that the "threatening presence of several offi-

cers" and the "absence of other members of the public" are factors that could indicate that a rea-

sonable person would not feel free to ignore an encounter with the police). United States v. Little,

18 F.3d 1499, 1505, n. 6 (10th Cir. 1994) (“Characteristics such as whether the person being

questioned is a child or an adult . . . are objective and relevant" to the question of whether a rea-

sonable person would feel free to leave.); State v. Paul T., 1999-NMSC-037, (The full-blown

search by a police officer of the pockets of a 15year-old for violation of a curfew exceeded the

lawful and limited protective search under the Fourth Amendment.)

The New Mexico Supreme Court in ACLU v. City of Albuquerque, Id. at ¶19, noted that Section

32A-3B-3(A)(4) of the Children’s Code authorizes law enforcement to take children into protec-

tive custody who are endangered by their surroundings.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The bill would require municipalities who passed curfew ordinances to establish a Family Edu-

cation Program. Additionally, the CYFD would have to have sufficient hearing officers to hear

appeals of the issuance of citations to curfew violators. The cost for CYFD to establish these

programs or increase FTE cannot be determined by the Public Education Department (PED).

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The bill requires the CYFD to adopt rules regarding ACLU v. City of Albuquerque during the

collection of curfew data and report this data annually to the Legislature.

Because HB 471 is unclear as to whether a court will be asked to resolve issues regarding excep-

tions to the ordinance that will be claimed, it is unknown if enactment of this bill would impact

various judicial resources. AOC, however, is expecting that challenges to the constitutionality of

curfew ordinances will occur, requiring the involvement of court personnel and requiring the al-

location of judicial resources.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

The AG suggest deleting the definitions "abused child" and "neglected child" in Section 2 of HB

471 and add a new Section 2 that states that, unless otherwise provided, terms used in the Curfew

Enforcement Act shall be defined under the "Children's Code General Provisions Act" or the

"Abuse and Neglect Act."

HB 471 uses the term department without a definition. Presumably, the term means CYFD as

defined in the "Children's Code General Provisions Act."

Even though the bill ostensibly does not authorize taking children into custody, the bill’s re-

quirement of having law enforcement issue a warning or citations for a “first violation” or “sec-

ond violation” respectively, make it appear that acts of delinquency are involved.

House Bill 471/aHGUAC Page 4

As discussed above, PED notes that section 5 contains so many general exceptions to a child’s

“violation” of the bill’s curfew requirement as to create confusion for law enforcement who

would be required to determine the veracity of these exceptions in their determination to warn or

cite a minor. As discussed above, taking or not taking a child into custody while verifying the

child’s authority to be outside of his home could expose the municipality to liability.

Given that an officer “shall issue a warning to the child,” It is not clear that how another officer

would know if a child has previously violated a curfew ordinance and should be issued a citation

for a second violation. (Line 22, Page 4) The officer may not have information regarding prior

offenses and without that information it may be difficult to meet the conditions.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

According to the AG’s office, in 1999, the New Mexico Supreme Court struck down an Albu-

querque curfew ordinance that criminalized juvenile activity that is not unlawful when commit-

ted by adults. The Supreme Court held that the Delinquency Act of Children's Code preempts

the City from enacting and enforcing the curfew ordinance because the ordinance authorizes

criminal punishment of children for acts that would not be a crime under the law if committed by

adults. Moreover, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the lateness of the hour was in-

herently dangerous to children and held that the City cannot take children into protective custody

without (1) a fact-specific showing allowing protective custody under Families in Need of Court

Ordered Services Act, § 32A-3B-3 and (2) compliance with the safeguards and placement re-

quirements of the Children's Code. See American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico v. City

of Albuquerque, 1999-NMSC-044. HB 471 allows municipalities and counties to enact non-

criminal curfew laws that divert the children and families to the provisions under the Children's

Code.

BD/yr:lg