Councilmembers propose anti-loitering alternative to curfew

In response to mounting opposition to a proposed teen curfew, Montgomery County Councilmembers Phil Andrews and George Leventhal will introduce an anti-loitering bill modeled on ones used in Florida and Georgia. They call it a “better tool” for fighting crime because it targets actual troublemakers, not just youth.

“A loitering and prowling law wouldn’t discriminate based on age, wouldn’t be limited to late-night hours … and would target criminally suspicious behavior by anyone,” writes Andrews, who represents Rockville and Gaithersburg, in a memo.

Bill 35-11, as it’s officially called, would prohibit certain kinds of “loitering or prowling,” defined as being “in a public place or establishment at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding persons.” It also specifies that police only take action when they “reasonably [believe]” an individual’s behavior “justifies alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”

Police must ask people suspected of loitering to explain themselves, and they also have to give a warning. Those who don’t obey an officer’s warning would be charged with a misdemeanor. The bill strengthens the county’s existing anti-loitering laws, which were last amended in 2006 to remove the words “loiter” and “loitering.”

Curfew supporters are skeptical of the anti-loitering bill. Councilmember Craig Rice, who represents the upcounty area, tells the Examiner that the lack of a curfew sent a message to kids that it’s “OK for you to be out there at 2 in the morning” and causing trouble, while County Executive Leggett worries that the loitering bill was “overly broad” and could encourage racial profiling.

Ironically, Leggett’s concerns are the same raised by curfew opponents. Both curfews and anti-loitering laws have been criticized for being hard to enforce and subject to abuse.

Chicago’s anti-loitering law was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1999 for violating the First Amendment right to peaceful assembly, while Newark and several suburban towns in New Jersey revoked their anti-loitering laws for using vague terms like “no loafing.” And in the District, repeated attempts to ban gatherings of more than two people have failed.

Nonetheless, Leventhal is confident that Montgomery County’s bill, as drafted, would be less intrusive. “I think it raises far fewer civil liberties concerns than a curfew and I prefer this approach,” he wrote in an e-mail. “I think it responds to the concerns that have been raised by the Police Department,” who say current laws don’t give them “necessary power to prevent harm to persons or property.”

Crime, including youth- and gang-related incidents, has been dropping in Montgomery County since 2007, as Andrews points out. And just as Lt. Robert Carter of the Montgomery County Police predicted in August, crime fell in downtown Silver Spring when more cops were placed on the street.

Given these circumstances, it’s reasonable to say our police are doing fine. But Leggett and Police Chief Thomas Manger have put considerable effort highlighting youth crimes to build the case for a curfew, making the public fearful. As a result, the burden’s on opponents to produce a more palatable alternative that still shows we’re Doing Something About Crime.

It’s an imperfect solution, but far less imperfect than a curfew. What Councilmembers Andrews and Leventhal have done, however, is say what we’ve needed to hear all along: crime isn’t limited to late nights and it certainly isn’t limited to young people.

If this is what it takes to get Montgomery County off the backs of its teenagers, I’m curious to hear more.

The Montgomery County Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed anti-loitering bill on Tuesday, November 15 at 7:30 pm in the Council Office Building, 100 Maryland Avenue in Rockville. To testify or for more information, visit the Council website.

Disclosure: I used to work as a legislative aide for Councilmember Leventhal.