Charleston City Council members unanimously passed the first reading of a measure that would limit when juveniles can be out and about without a parent along the King Street corridor.
The proposed curfew bars people under 18 from being on King Street from Carolina to Broad streets, Market Street south of King Street and East Bay Street from Market to Broad Streets between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., Thursdays through Sundays. According to the ordinance, pushed by Charleston Police Chief Chito Walker, minors violating the curfew will be asked to leave the area by a police officer. If needed, a parent or guardian will be contacted to pick them up.
Enforcement of the curfew includes several exceptions, including for kids who work or are attending school, church or public activities. Another exception is for kids exercising First Amendment rights.
After discussion Tuesday, each member of city council voted for the measure, including Boyd Gregg, Kevin Shealy, Jim McBride, Robert Mitchell, Karl Brady, William Dudley Gregorie, Keith Waring, Mike Seekings, William Tinkler, Stephen Bowden, Ross Appel and Caroline Parker. Bowden expressed some concern about the curfew hours, but ultimately voted in favor of the ordinance.
Council members generally said the ordinance, which faces another review by council on June 17 before becoming law, would act as a jumping off point to increase safety along the often-troubled corridor, especially as teenagers have more free time on their hands over the summer.
Community members, however, say they feared the ordinance could be used as an excuse to over-police the city’s children and could lead to racial discrimination.
“There seems to be overwhelming support for this in the public, but there are some understandable concerns about overrestriction,” said council member McBride said. “I’m all about freedom, as much freedom as possible, but at the same time, we have to ensure safety.”
Council members also pointed to exacerbated crime rates in the area after dark as the reason for the curfew.
“There seems to be a rise in … free range parenting … and expecting society to bear the consequences, and that’s something we should not be encouraging,” said Brady, another member of council.
Since January 2024, the city said on its Facebook page last week, Charleston police have responded to more than 40 late-night incidents involving juveniles, including drug possession, assaults, vehicle break-ins and other criminal activity.
Opponents quickly pointed out that with those rates in mind, that is less than one call per week over the past 500 days.
“Wouldn’t be surprised if this was later overturned being deemed unconstitutional all at the expense of taxpayers,” one person complained on Facebook.
“This is way too broad and vague,” another said.
Other concerns included how the ordinance would be enforced. Police are already stretched thin, some said, and identifying who is and is not a minor can be difficult, especially after sunset.
“Frankly, Charleston police don’t have the resources to be stopping every single young-looking person,” Bowden said. “If I didn’t have a beard, they might still be stopping me down there.”
Other council members, however, said this would be treated as a temporary measure for the summer months to be reviewed later.
“This is something that we’re trying out,” said Charleston Mayor William Cogswell. “We can come back to it. This is not permanent, but it’s a good place to start. It’s what [Police Chief Chito Walker] has asked for. I’m all for figuring out how to come back and look at it and see what’s working, what’s not working and adjust accordingly.”
NOTE: The mayor’s statement is inaccurate. If the ordinance becomes city law, it will be permanent (Section 3) – unless council later votes to amend or nix it. There was a discussion of having a sunset provision to make it temporary law, but that was not added in the proposal that council considered and passed.
Meanwhile during the meeting, Bowden suggested a push of the curfew start time to 10 p.m. or even 11 p.m., saying that 9 p.m. seemed “awfully early.” But the amendment was not added before the council’s initial approval.
“Kids’ lives were so difficult, so altered during Covid that I just really hesitate to take something away from kids’ ability to be normal, go on a date on a Friday night,” he said. He added that it may be worth looking to expand the list of exceptions included in the ordinance.
Cogswell encouraged council members to approve the ordinance as written, with no amendments, as Walker suggested, with the expectation that the council can reconvene to discuss its effectiveness in the fall.
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.