This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The City of Albuquerque enacted a juvenile Curfew Ordinance to protect minors, enforce parental control, and reduce juvenile crime. The ordinance prohibited individuals under 17 from being in public places during curfew hours and imposed penalties, including fines and imprisonment. The City also implemented the Safe Teen Operation Program (STOP), a pilot enforcement initiative, during which minors were detained, handcuffed, and processed without being informed of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs, including the ACLU, children, parents, and a business owner, challenged the ordinance and its enforcement as unconstitutional and preempted by the New Mexico Children's Code (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, September 25, 1997: Held that the Curfew Ordinance violated the New Mexico Constitution and was preempted by the Children's Code. Denied Plaintiffs' other claims and attorney fees. Denied the City's motion for a stay pending appeal (paras 6-7).
Parties' Submissions
- City of Albuquerque (Defendant/Appellant): Argued that the Curfew Ordinance was a valid exercise of municipal authority to protect minors and the public. Claimed the STOP program was consistent with the Children's Code and that Plaintiffs lacked standing as they were not directly affected by the ordinance (paras 8-9, 16, 20).
- Plaintiffs (Appellees/Cross-Appellants): Contended that the Curfew Ordinance violated constitutional rights, was preempted by the Children's Code, and improperly criminalized lawful behavior by minors. They also sought attorney fees and costs, arguing the City's actions were in bad faith (paras 8-9, 26-29).
Legal Issues
- Does the New Mexico Children's Code preempt the City of Albuquerque's Curfew Ordinance?
- Was the STOP program consistent with the requirements of the Children's Code?
- Did the Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Curfew Ordinance and the STOP program?
- Were Plaintiffs entitled to attorney fees and costs?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Children's Code preempted the Curfew Ordinance and that the STOP program violated the Code. Plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney fees or additional costs (paras 25, 30).
Reasons
Per Serna J. (Minzner C.J., Baca, and Franchini JJ. concurring):
- Preemption by the Children's Code: The Court found that the Children's Code comprehensively governs the treatment of minors and preempts municipal ordinances that criminalize behavior lawful for adults. The Curfew Ordinance conflicted with the Code by imposing criminal penalties on minors for non-criminal behavior (paras 10-15).
- STOP Program Violations: The STOP program failed to comply with the Children's Code's procedural requirements for taking children into protective custody. The program's practices, such as photographing minors without court orders and detaining them without specific findings of endangerment, were inconsistent with statutory protections (paras 20-24).
- Standing: Plaintiffs had standing to challenge the ordinance and program because their lawful activities were curtailed, and the STOP program demonstrated the City's intent to enforce the Curfew (paras 8-9).
- Attorney Fees: The Court denied attorney fees, finding no statutory or other authority to award them. It rejected claims of bad faith and declined to adopt the private attorney general doctrine (paras 26-29).
Per Maes J. (specially concurring):
- Justice Maes agreed with the majority that the STOP program violated the Children's Code but disagreed with the preemption rationale. Instead, she argued that the Curfew Ordinance was unconstitutional due to its overbreadth, vagueness, and infringement on parental rights. She emphasized that the ordinance failed to narrowly tailor its restrictions to serve compelling state interests and improperly interfered with family autonomy (paras 32-38).