Opinion ID: 782210
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factual Premises

Text: 51 Unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of a documentary record of the town council's discussions regarding the need for a curfew or the research that went into deciding the scope of the curfew. Instead, we must rely on the goals written into the curfew ordinance itself and the testimony of individuals who played a role in its adoption. Drawing from those sources, the factual premises considered by the Vernon Town Council can be broken down into two types. First, groups of young people had been seen gathering on the streets. Second, police and some members of the community perceived an increase in gang activity locally. Part of this perception was based upon the murder of a 16-year-old Vernon resident. See Ramos, 48 F. Supp.2d at 185. 52 With respect to the first type of evidence, two former town officials testified. Steven Wakefield, a defense witness, was deputy mayor of the Town of Vernon from 1991 until 1995. He stated that between 1992 and 1993 [t]here seemed to be a general increase of people, primarily younger types. They were starting to gather in certain areas in the Rockville section of Vernon ... pretty much days and nights, and sometimes they became more visible. This was in warmer weather. 53 Wakefield further testified that he had become aware of this situation both from his own observations and through calls [to City Hall] from people who told us they had concerns to the point of being scared of traversing some of these areas. Wakefield also reported that some townspeople had attended town council meetings and lodged complaints about juvenile activity. The proof at trial presented by defendants did not disclose the number of people who had voiced these concerns or the precise nature of their concerns. For instance, information such as the time of day or ages of the offending individuals was not offered to support the factual premises. 54 Thomasina Clemons, a member of the Vernon Town Council prior to and at the time of the enactment of the curfew ordinance, also testified for the defense. While going to and from work, she had observed [a]n increase in the number of people on the street and [an] increase in the number of younger people on certain streets in Vernon. When asked to describe the changes brought about by the curfew ordinance, Clemons stated that prior to the adoption of the curfew, she had stopped taking walks on Sunday mornings because she saw people who look[ed] like skinheads ... [that] were new to the environment and then later, [she] started seeing other young people. Clemons readily volunteered, however, that she didn't see them doing anything but ... sort of being there. As for post-curfew improvements, Clemons said that she had no knowledge or personal opinion on that subject. 55 In June 1994 two months prior to the adoption of the curfew ordinance, a 16-year-old Vernon resident was murdered in his home. Although the victim was a former gang member, a report prepared by defendants' expert indicates that the crime was probably a result of a robbery and not gang-related. Wakefield testified he had been shocked by the murder and related 56 I had never anticipated or heard of anything like that. I lived in Vernon since I was five years old. It was the first time I became aware of anything like that in our backyard. It just seemed like this thing was starting to escalate and get to [the] point where it was non-controllable. 57 Plaintiffs and defendants both presented statistics at trial that they urged support their respective positions. Although the defense purported to show the curfew was successfully reducing crime, the defense expert admitted, I would feel uncomfortable saying that the curfew directly decreases crime simply because I didn't conduct an analysis, because data wasn't available to me, and I don't want to overstep the data that I had. Plaintiffs' expert, drawing on the Town of Vernon's Police Department Quarterly Reports from July 1993 to June 1998, concluded that Vernon experienced a larger decline in crime before the curfew took effect than after, and that Vernon's crime decline did not correspond to the curfew's enforcement. Plaintiffs' expert additionally examined the 410 reports of curfew stops involving youths ages 16 and 17 provided by Vernon police. Analyzing these reports by time of stop, age, sex, race, residence, other criminal activity and circumstances of the juvenile, they found negligible juvenile crime and no instances of juvenile endangerment in connection with the stops. 58 A problem for both plaintiffs' and defendants' expert analyses is that the available sample of curfew citations and warnings was much smaller than the total number actually stopped for violations because state law prohibited the release of the records of children under 16. In addition, the records of arrests maintained by the Vernon Police Department revealed the total number of juvenile arrests, but did not reveal the time when the crimes were committed. Further, the police did not compile statistics on the age of victims of crime in Vernon. Moreover, the curfew was enacted at the same time that several other law enforcement changes were made in Vernon, including the hiring of a new police chief, the addition of new police officers to the force and the implementation of new community programs. In light of all of these changes, the district court correctly declined to attribute any changes in arrests or crime levels to the curfew ordinance. See Ramos, 48 F. Supp.2d at 185. 59 Another factor leading to the ordinance's adoption was the survey. In April and May 1994 the Town of Vernon surveyed students in middle school and high school to determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing services for youth and families in Vernon. The study of the Vernon schoolchildren reveals that many of them were concerned about guns and violence. Ramos, 48 F. Supp.2d at 185.