ARTICLES
January 1998 ARTICLESLETTERS
Contents © 1998
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
Unfairly Targeted?
MONROVIA ENLISTS OTHER CITIES TO FIGHT HOMESCHOOLER'S CHALLENGE
By Victoria Freiheit
A constitutional challenge to the City of Monrovia's daytime curfew is winding it's way through the Los Angeles Superior Court system. Currently, both plaintiffs and defendants have taken the depositions of the various persons involved.
This lawsuit, believed to be the first of its kind, challenges the constitutionality of the highly popular daytime curfew ordinances that municipalities have enacted throughout the country in an attempt to curb what is perceived to be a growing crime rate amongst juveniles. Often city officials cite the curfew laws as instrumental in drastically reducing juvenile crime.
The lawsuit cites several specific instances in which Monrovia police officers have stopped and detained persons who appeared to be minors off school property. One allegation states that Monrovia police stopped 15 year old Jess Harahill 17 times while on his way home from school. The lawsuit also alleges that defendants have violated plaintiffs' "constitutional rights to direct the upbringing of their children as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the California Constitution."
Monrovia Police Chief, Joseph Santoro, cites the California Supreme Court case, "In re: James D." as the basis for the law. Andrew W. Zepeda, local counsel for the plaintiffs, disagrees: "The city is not stopping students under 'In re: James D.' If they were, they could not issue a citation. They would have to return the alleged truant back to the school. The police can stop the student under the State Education Code. The police would rather not trouble themselves with returning a student to school, so they issue a citation instead. 'In re: James D.' found that the ability to detain a person suspected of truancy was found under the education code provision, not a criminal provision. The city of Monrovia is trying to piggy back their ordinance on 'In re: James D.'"
The lawsuit also brings up the potential danger of allowing unmarked, plainclothes police officers, to randomly stop children during public school hours, even though the children are all legitimately enrolled in either private schools or are being home schooled. The complaint also states that children's personal safety is placed in jeopardy by the creation of a police practice that could allow a child molester to pose as a non-uniformed police officer enforcing a curfew ordinance. The children are not given an opportunity to determine if the person stopping them is a police officer or a child molester who wants to attack them. This is seen as a violation of the children's constitutional rights to ensure their physical integrity.
The lawsuit asks the court to state that Monrovia's daytime curfew is unconstitutional, and preliminary and permanent injunctions that would restrain defendants from enforcing the curfew ordinance. The lawsuit is currently pending before Judge Carolyn Kuhl in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
An interesting development in the lawsuit is that the city of Monrovia has established a legal defense fund to which other cities can contribute to help defray the cost of the litigation. To date four other cities have contributed to the fund: the City of Industry, the City of La Verne, the City of Maywood and the City of Shafter. Monrovia City Clerk, Linda Proctor, told the Mission that many cities are concerned about the constitutional challenge and wanted to support the defense. City Manger Don Hopper added that to date 40 cities have issued resolutions in support of Monrovia's daytime curfew. The League of California Cities also supports the curfew.
The law firm of Franscell, Stickland, Roberts & Lawrence will handle the matter on behalf of Monrovia, with City Attorney Michele Bagneris as co-counsel.
Captain Roger W. Johnson, a captain with the Monrovia Police Department, contacted the Mission upon learning of this article. Captain Johnston alleged that the plaintiffs in the action were "backed by a larger organization that had a political agenda". When queried about this "political agenda" he refused comment and deferred comment to Chief Santoro.
When questioned why Monrovia police stopped Jess Harahill 17 times, Captain Johnston replied that to believe this allegation, one must first assume that previous media articles were accurate. Captain Johnston also mentioned that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) thought that the ordinance was "great." Apparently, Chief Santoro had been a guest on a radio talk show along with an ACLU representative who had praised the ordinance. Captain Johnston posed the question: "When was the last time the ACLU was on the side of law enforcement?"
Chief Joseph Santoro opines that this lawsuit is a front for a political agenda. He noted that the attorneys representing the plaintiffs are "back East" (though local counsel, Andrew Zepeda of the law firm Lurie & Zepeda, is Beverly Hills based), and believes that Monrovia is being unfairly targeted for an unknown reason. The attorneys "back East" are the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), based in Virginia. When asked why she chose HSLDA to represent her in this lawsuit, Plaintiff Rosemary Harrahill replied: "I had asked around and the HSLDA attorneys are the experts in this area of law. If I knew that Buddhist monks in pink polka dot shorts were the experts, I would have gone with them. The City of Monrovia cannot imagine how a mother of seven can organize a protest against their ordinance, so they fashioned a conspiracy theory".
Recently a Status Conference was held and both sides have indicated that they will file Motions for Summary Judgement. The motions are to be heard on March 10, 1998 before Judge Carolyn Kuhl in the Los Angeles Superior Court. A trial date has been set for June 29, 1998.