LIGHTS OUT FOR THE CURFEW

DISTRICT COUNCILMAN Frank Smith says he will craft yet another version of an emergency curfew law for the city's juveniles. We have a better idea: Mr. Smith and the rest of the council should simply drop this effort. In federal court on Monday, Judge Charles R. Richey predictably blocked enforcement of the law with a 10-day restraining order, saying that the idea of a curfew "gives me the chills." The American Civil Liberties Union had filed suit to derail the curfew. Judge Richey said that the law raised "serious constitutional claims" for juveniles who would be confined to their homes at night or forced to carry documents showing they have legitimate reasons to be on the streets.

Under the law, all youths under the age of 18 were supposed to be off the streets between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weeknights and between midnight and 6 a.m. on weekends. Any juveniles who had to be out during those times would have had to carry affidavits signed by their parents or guardians and employers. Whether or not you think young people should be out at such late hours, a curfew is hardly the proper way to proceed.

First, it would have compounded problems for a police force that is already strained to its limits by the city's homicide rate and drug trafficking. Officers were supposed to herd all youthful suspects to the station houses, where they would stay until released to their parents or guardians -- whoever or wherever they were, and assuming that, on the second offense, they were prepared to fork over fines of $100, $200 and $500.

The council should listen to Police Chief Maurice T. Turner Jr., who has been opposed to a curfew from the beginning. Mayor Marion Barry, who simply allowed the bill to become law by not signing it, continues to flip-flop on the subject. Mr. Barry says that he prefers that parents voluntarily keep track of their children. But on Monday the mayor urged the council to pass another version of the curfew prepared by his own staff.

The mayor seems convinced that his version contains language that would meet constitutional tests. But the measure would still leave the police department burdened with the task of stopping anyone suspected of being younger than 18 and checking for identification that such a person might or might not have. Patrol officers have more than enough already to keep them occupied on the streets.

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