Mandatory curfew ...is it Constitutional?

[ScienceRocks]

Here's the deal for you progs and libertarian pot heads. I cited the 1st, the 4th and the 5th Amendment that says the government doesn't have the right to incarcerate you in your own home. You say naa, naa , they have the right because they have the right. Does this make an argument in your minds?

So a pack of fucking animals should be allowed to burn our country to the ground. Give me a fucking break!!!

 

[aris2chat]

It seems that the Mayor of Baltimore and/or the Governor has established a mandatory curfew of citizens within a certain geographical area in Maryland. I'm a strong advocate of law enforcement but it seems to me that a mandatory curfew violates about half a dozen Constitutional Amendments. I understand the issues at hand but would find it extremely troubling if helicopters circled my neighborhood with powerful searchlights looking for individuals who escaped imprisonment in their own homes during certain hours.

specifically which "half a dozen constitutional amendments" are being violated?
You might have uncovered something that no lawyer in the entire history of this country knows...keep at it..

The right to freely assemble comes to mind.

Well, go sue the federal government and explain it all to them...good luck.
curfews in disasters and civil unrest are legal..get over it..

Because the government says it's legal?

That is how we lose our freedoms.

LMAO...you're funny..curfews are legal...get over it...go look up the legal definition...and then go sue the government...you guys are ridiculous....

After the last two days, baltimore is under emergency conditions, they requested the NG and increased the police on duty
Those not going home are in violation and should be if not arrested then move to an enclosed place, ticketed and detained till the curfew end in the morning. If they end up being ticketed tomorrow, the they should be arrested and booked.
I think reporters should have been restricted to roof tops and made to leave the streets. The crowds are playing for the TV and to incite an incident with police.

The pepper pellets should be mixed with a marker ink like for money that does not wash offskin. Anyone that glows was involved and police can make arrests over a matter of days instead of in front of TV camera during the curfew.

If it turns out that Grey had back surgery days before the arrest and was supposed to stay home, all this might be where the cops are found not guilty. Grey should have spoken to police to warn them of his back. You don't try to run from police unless you are trying to injure your own back.
The riots would have been like Ferguson, totally unnecessary. There might even be a case for libel and harassment of police against not just the rioters but some of the press as well.

 

[aris2chat]

Here's the deal for you progs and libertarian pot heads. I cited the 1st, the 4th and the 5th Amendment that says the government doesn't have the right to incarcerate you in your own home. You say naa, naa , they have the right because they have the right. Does this make an argument in your minds?

So a pack of fucking animals should be allowed to burn our country to the ground. Give me a fucking break!!!

pubic endangerment destruction of private property

 

[Missourian]

It seems that the Mayor of Baltimore and/or the Governor has established a mandatory curfew of citizens within a certain geographical area in Maryland. I'm a strong advocate of law enforcement but it seems to me that a mandatory curfew violates about half a dozen Constitutional Amendments. I understand the issues at hand but would find it extremely troubling if helicopters circled my neighborhood with powerful searchlights looking for individuals who escaped imprisonment in their own homes during certain hours.

specifically which "half a dozen constitutional amendments" are being violated?
You might have uncovered something that no lawyer in the entire history of this country knows...keep at it..

The right to freely assemble comes to mind.

Well, go sue the federal government and explain it all to them...good luck.
curfews in disasters and civil unrest are legal..get over it..

Umm, how are they legal?

It seems that the Mayor of Baltimore and/or the Governor has established a mandatory curfew of citizens within a certain geographical area in Maryland. I'm a strong advocate of law enforcement but it seems to me that a mandatory curfew violates about half a dozen Constitutional Amendments. I understand the issues at hand but would find it extremely troubling if helicopters circled my neighborhood with powerful searchlights looking for individuals who escaped imprisonment in their own homes during certain hours.

specifically which "half a dozen constitutional amendments" are being violated?
You might have uncovered something that no lawyer in the entire history of this country knows...keep at it..

The right to freely assemble comes to mind.

Well, go sue the federal government and explain it all to them...good luck.
curfews in disasters and civil unrest are legal..get over it..

Umm, how are they legal?

Curfews directed at adults touch upon fundamental constitutional rights and thus are subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that "[t]he right to walk the streets, or to meet publicly with one's friends for a noble purpose or for no purpose at all—and to do so whenever one pleases—is an integral component of life in a free and ordered society." Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 US 156, 164, 31 L. Ed. 2d 110, 92 S. Ct 839 (1972).

To satisfy strict-scrutiny analysis, a government-imposed curfew on adults must be supported by a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective. Court's are loath to find that an interest advanced by the government is compelling. The more justifications that courts find to uphold a curfew on adults, the more watered-down becomes the fundamental right to travel and to associate with others in public places at all times of the day.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this right may be legitimately curtailed when a community has been ravaged by flood, fire, or disease, or when its safety and Welfare are otherwise threatened. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965). The California Court of Appeals cited this ruling in a case that reviewed an order issued by the city of Long Beach, California, which declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews on all adults (and minors) within the city's confines after widespread civil disorder broke out following the Rodney G. King beating trial, in which four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of using excessive force in subduing an African-American motorist following a high-speed traffic chase. In re Juan C., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919 (Cal. App. 1994).

"Rioting, looting and burning," the California court wrote, "pose a similar threat to the safety and welfare of a community, and provide a compelling reason to impose a curfew." "The right to travel is a hollow promise when members of the community face the possibility of being beaten or shot by an unruly mob if they attempt to exercise this right," the court continued, and "[t]emporary restrictions on the right… are a reasonable means of reclaiming order from anarchy so that all might exercise their constitutional rights freely and safely."

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.


any more questions, matlock?

Zemel v Rusk is about travel to Cuba.

 

[whitehall]

Here's the deal for you progs and libertarian pot heads. I cited the 1st, the 4th and the 5th Amendment that says the government doesn't have the right to incarcerate you in your own home. You say naa, naa , they have the right because they have the right. Does this make an argument in your minds?

Curfews directed at adults touch upon fundamental constitutional rights and thus are subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that "[t]he right to walk the streets, or to meet publicly with one's friends for a noble purpose or for no purpose at all—and to do so whenever one pleases—is an integral component of life in a free and ordered society." Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 US 156, 164, 31 L. Ed. 2d 110, 92 S. Ct 839 (1972).

To satisfy strict-scrutiny analysis, a government-imposed curfew on adults must be supported by a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective. Court's are loath to find that an interest advanced by the government is compelling. The more justifications that courts find to uphold a curfew on adults, the more watered-down becomes the fundamental right to travel and to associate with others in public places at all times of the day.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this right may be legitimately curtailed when a community has been ravaged by flood, fire, or disease, or when its safety and Welfare are otherwise threatened. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965). The California Court of Appeals cited this ruling in a case that reviewed an order issued by the city of Long Beach, California, which declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews on all adults (and minors) within the city's confines after widespread civil disorder broke out following the Rodney G. King beating trial, in which four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of using excessive force in subduing an African-American motorist following a high-speed traffic chase. In re Juan C., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919 (Cal. App. 1994).

"Rioting, looting and burning," the California court wrote, "pose a similar threat to the safety and welfare of a community, and provide a compelling reason to impose a curfew." "The right to travel is a hollow promise when members of the community face the possibility of being beaten or shot by an unruly mob if they attempt to exercise this right," the court continued, and "[t]emporary restrictions on the right… are a reasonable means of reclaiming order from anarchy so that all might exercise their constitutional rights freely and safely."

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Papachristou v City of Jacksonville was about vagrancy. The arrest was thrown out. Zemel v Rusk was about travel to Cuba.

 

[Missourian]

LMAO...you're funny..curfews are legal...get over it...go look up the legal definition...and then go sue the government...you guys are ridiculous....

Show me the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionally of government curfew.

Just because you like it, or even believe it is a good idea doesn't make it constitutional.

There doesn't have to be a SCOTUS ruling on something for it to be constitutional/legal. Last time I checked the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on gum chewing. It's legal.

Is there a law against chewing gum?

 

[whitehall]

Here's the deal for you progs and libertarian pot heads. I cited the 1st, the 4th and the 5th Amendment that says the government doesn't have the right to incarcerate you in your own home. You say naa, naa , they have the right because they have the right. Does this make an argument in your minds?

So a pack of fucking animals should be allowed to burn our country to the ground. Give me a fucking break!!!

The greatest Country in the world should be able to stop "a pack of fucking animals from burning our Country to the ground" without having to imprison people in their own homes.

 

[Rotagilla]

Here's the deal for you progs and libertarian pot heads. I cited the 1st, the 4th and the 5th Amendment that says the government doesn't have the right to incarcerate you in your own home. You say naa, naa , they have the right because they have the right. Does this make an argument in your minds?

Curfews directed at adults touch upon fundamental constitutional rights and thus are subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that "[t]he right to walk the streets, or to meet publicly with one's friends for a noble purpose or for no purpose at all—and to do so whenever one pleases—is an integral component of life in a free and ordered society." Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 US 156, 164, 31 L. Ed. 2d 110, 92 S. Ct 839 (1972).

To satisfy strict-scrutiny analysis, a government-imposed curfew on adults must be supported by a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective. Court's are loath to find that an interest advanced by the government is compelling. The more justifications that courts find to uphold a curfew on adults, the more watered-down becomes the fundamental right to travel and to associate with others in public places at all times of the day.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this right may be legitimately curtailed when a community has been ravaged by flood, fire, or disease, or when its safety and Welfare are otherwise threatened. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965). The California Court of Appeals cited this ruling in a case that reviewed an order issued by the city of Long Beach, California, which declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews on all adults (and minors) within the city's confines after widespread civil disorder broke out following the Rodney G. King beating trial, in which four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of using excessive force in subduing an African-American motorist following a high-speed traffic chase. In re Juan C., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919 (Cal. App. 1994).

"Rioting, looting and burning," the California court wrote, "pose a similar threat to the safety and welfare of a community, and provide a compelling reason to impose a curfew." "The right to travel is a hollow promise when members of the community face the possibility of being beaten or shot by an unruly mob if they attempt to exercise this right," the court continued, and "[t]emporary restrictions on the right… are a reasonable means of reclaiming order from anarchy so that all might exercise their constitutional rights freely and safely."

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Papachristou v City of Jacksonville was about vagrancy. The arrest was thrown out. Zemel v Rusk was about travel to Cuba.

so? those were cases that were cited. What's your point?

here's the law proving that curfews are legal get over it..

To satisfy strict-scrutiny analysis, a government-imposed curfew on adults must be supported by a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this right may be legitimately curtailed when a community has been ravaged by flood, fire, or disease, or when its safety and Welfare are otherwise threatened. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965). The California Court of Appeals cited this ruling in a case that reviewed an order issued by the city of Long Beach, California, which declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews on all adults (and minors) within the city's confines after widespread civil disorder broke out following the Rodney G. King beating trial, in which four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of using excessive force in subduing an African-American motorist following a high-speed traffic chase. In re Juan C., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919 (Cal. App. 1994).

"Rioting, looting and burning," the California court wrote, "pose a similar threat to the safety and welfare of a community, and provide a compelling reason to impose a curfew." "The right to travel is a hollow promise when members of the community face the possibility of being beaten or shot by an unruly mob if they attempt to exercise this right," the court continued, and "[t]emporary restrictions on the right… are a reasonable means of reclaiming order from anarchy so that all might exercise their constitutional rights freely and safely."[/b

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

[aris2chat]

Here's the deal for you progs and libertarian pot heads. I cited the 1st, the 4th and the 5th Amendment that says the government doesn't have the right to incarcerate you in your own home. You say naa, naa , they have the right because they have the right. Does this make an argument in your minds?

extenuation circumstances all the city, state or president to call for curfews

Does everyone forget 9/11 already when emergency and police or even after sandy?
Safety trumps so called 'rights'.

 

[aris2chat]

LMAO...you're funny..curfews are legal...get over it...go look up the legal definition...and then go sue the government...you guys are ridiculous....

Show me the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionally of government curfew.

Just because you like it, or even believe it is a good idea doesn't make it constitutional.

There doesn't have to be a SCOTUS ruling on something for it to be constitutional/legal. Last time I checked the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on gum chewing. It's legal.

Is there a law against chewing gum?

In some places, it is. Fines can be $1000 or more

 

[Missourian]

LMAO...you're funny..curfews are legal...get over it...go look up the legal definition...and then go sue the government...you guys are ridiculous....

Show me the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionally of government curfew.

Just because you like it, or even believe it is a good idea doesn't make it constitutional.

There doesn't have to be a SCOTUS ruling on something for it to be constitutional/legal. Last time I checked the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on gum chewing. It's legal.

Is there a law against chewing gum?

In some places, it is. Fines can be $1000 or more

Think that law would pass constitutional muster in the U.S.?

 

[Rotagilla]

we're talking about whether or not curfew is legal, not chewing gum...and it's been resolved...curfew is legal...

 

[aris2chat]

LMAO...you're funny..curfews are legal...get over it...go look up the legal definition...and then go sue the government...you guys are ridiculous....

Show me the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionally of government curfew.

Just because you like it, or even believe it is a good idea doesn't make it constitutional.

There doesn't have to be a SCOTUS ruling on something for it to be constitutional/legal. Last time I checked the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on gum chewing. It's legal.

Is there a law against chewing gum?

In some places, it is. Fines can be $1000 or more

Think that law would pass constitutional muster in the U.S.?

There are fines for chewing gum in the US

 

[Missourian]

Show me the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionally of government curfew.

Just because you like it, or even believe it is a good idea doesn't make it constitutional.

There doesn't have to be a SCOTUS ruling on something for it to be constitutional/legal. Last time I checked the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on gum chewing. It's legal.

Is there a law against chewing gum?

In some places, it is. Fines can be $1000 or more

Think that law would pass constitutional muster in the U.S.?

There are fines for chewing gum in the US

Show me.

 

[aris2chat]

There doesn't have to be a SCOTUS ruling on something for it to be constitutional/legal. Last time I checked the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on gum chewing. It's legal.

Is there a law against chewing gum?

In some places, it is. Fines can be $1000 or more

Think that law would pass constitutional muster in the U.S.?

There are fines for chewing gum in the US

Show me.

Chicago, $5- $100

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It seems that the Mayor of Baltimore and/or the Governor has established a mandatory curfew of citizens within a certain geographical area in Maryland. I'm a strong advocate of law enforcement but it seems to me that a mandatory curfew violates about half a dozen Constitutional Amendments. I understand the issues at hand but would find it extremely troubling if helicopters circled my neighborhood with powerful searchlights looking for individuals who escaped imprisonment in their own homes during certain hours.

specifically which "half a dozen constitutional amendments" are being violated?
You might have uncovered something that no lawyer in the entire history of this country knows...keep at it..

The right to freely assemble comes to mind.

There's a right to peaceful assembly, not freely assemble.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

I think its safe to argue that people can peacefully assemble during the daylight hours and reschedule their night gatherings to the daylight hours. The night time hours are a cover for violent assembly, and the Federal and States Governments are OBLIGATED expressled by the Constitution of the United States to SUPPRESS insurrection and Domestic Violence

(Read Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, and Article I containing the powers of Congress and the function of the Militia).

 

[regent]

As I said in the beginning of this thread it is the "police powers"..