CITY CURFEW ON YOUTHS IS BLOCKED

JUDGE SAYS LAW 'GIVES ME CHILLS'

A federal judge, saying an emergency D.C. curfew law "gives me the chills," temporarily blocked the city yesterday from enforcing the curfew despite emotional pleas from city attorneys that the law is needed to protect youths from drugs and violence.

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Richey said the law, which was to take effect at 11 o'clock last night, raised "serious constitutional claims" for juveniles, who would be confined to their homes during late-night hours or forced to carry documents showing they have legitimate reasons to be out.

City officials said they would not appeal Richey's ruling. Mayor Marion Barry, who said in a statement that he was "disappointed" by the restraining order, urged the D.C. Council to approve another version of the curfew prepared by the mayor's staff.

Council member Frank Smith Jr. (D-Ward 1), the main architect of the curfew statute, said he was not backing down and that he had "no doubts" the council eventually will approve a curfew measure that will stand up in court.

Meanwhile, the Prince George's County Council is considering legislation that would establish fines and mandatory community service for juveniles and parents for violations of a 1976 law directed at loitering.

That law permits police to direct juveniles under 18 to move or go home between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.

But County Executive Parris Glendening said yesterday he is opposed to police enforcement of a "comprehensive curfew."

Glendening said he might favor "a strong curfew approach" in some neighborhoods but questioned whether such selective enforcement would be constitutional.

Judge Richey suggested that the D.C. legislation was overly broad and said he was particularly disturbed that the city could not show how a curfew would deter crime.

Calling the law "more of a reaction than a solution to a difficult problem," Richey said the city cannot battle rampant drug trafficking and record homicides "by throwing the baby out with the bath water."

The temporary restraining order issued by Richey prevents the city from enforcing the curfew for at least 10 days while the American Civil Liberties Union presses its lawsuit asking that the legislation be permanently struck down as unconstitutional.

Barry had allowed the 90-day emergency measure to become law without his signature after expressing concerns that the legislation was constitutionally flawed. The mayor last week sent the council an alternate version of the curfew that he said corrected flaws be creating several exceptions to the curfew restrictions.

Barry's spokesman, John C. White, said after yesterday's ruling that Barry continues to prefer "that parents voluntarily keep track of their children."

But Smith maintained his support for a curfew law, saying, "We will have a curfew at the end of all this. I don't think kids ought to be out all night."

Council member Charlene Drew Jarvis (D-Ward 4), a cosponsor of the curfew plan, also called yesterday's ruling a temporary setback. Jarvis said she sees the curfew as necessary not only to keep youths out of the drug trade but to "reimpose parental responsibility."

Jarvis said she is not swayed by arguments that the curfew will be an inconvenience. She said she hopes that people who are inconvenienced will, as a result, become more involved in fighting drugs.

The ACLU contends in its lawsuit filed on Friday that the D.C. curfew violates juveniles' constitutional rights to free association and due process. It argues that such extreme measures are proper only during riots or natural disasters.

Arthur B. Spitzer, head of the ACLU's Washington area legal office, told Judge Richey yesterday that the restrictions would force youths and their parents to engage in a form of "self-censorship." Spitzer said he knew of no other case where the courts have approved a curfew written as broadly as the one approved here.

The law would allow police to question and detain youths under 18 who are on the streets after 11 p.m. weekdays and midnight on weekends. Youths could be held at police stations overnight or until they are retrieved by their parents. The measure provides escalating fines for parents who repeatedly allow their children to violate the curfew.

Among the youths named as plaintiffs in the ACLU's class action suit is one who complains that the curfew, which would extend to 6 a.m., would prevent church attendance at a sunrise Easter service. Others contend that a curfew, which would begin at 11 p.m., would force them to curtail participation in student government and other activities at their schools.

One youth said he feared he might run afoul of the curfew because he is a National Park Service volunteer involved in tracking raccoons at odd hours.

David Dranitzke, 17, student government president at the Maret School in Northwest Washington and an organizer in the suit, said he rejects the idea of being forced to curtail his social activities.

"I work very hard during the week at school. It's nice to be able to go out late with friends on the weekend," Dranitzke said.

In arguments before Richey yesterday, Assistant D.C. Corporation Counsel Robin Alexander Smith said the city has been forced to take "desperate measures."

"We see on nightly news scenes of open-air drug markets with very young people standing around late into the night. And as everyone knows it's for no other reason than to buy drugs," Smith said. "It's frying their brains with promises of fantastic highs."

Smith said youths who have legitimate reasons to travel at night would have nothing to fear because police would use discretion before detaining anyone for curfew violations.

Staff writers Lawrence Feinberg and Eugene L. Meyer contributed to this report.

Articles appear as they were originally printed in The Washington Post and may not include subsequent corrections.