City Council committee advances revised teen curfew measure, Mayor Johnson won't say whether he'll veto it

Defying Mayor Brandon Johnson, a City Council committee tried again Wednesday to strengthen Chicago’s curfew ordinance to prevent teen takeovers from turning violent.

Last year, the City Council voted 27 to 22 to approve a snap curfew ordinance that would have empowered Police Superintendent Larry Snelling to declare three-hour-long curfews anywhere in the city with just 30 minutes notice. Johnson vetoed the ordinance and made it stick by preventing a 34-vote override.

But the downtown shooting that killed a 14-year-old boy after Chicago’s annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony in late November sent Public Safety Committee Chair Brian Hopkins back to the drawing board. He dropped the “snap” part of the curfew in hopes of preventing another mayoral veto.

On Wednesday, the Public Safety Committee approved a scaled back version by a vote of 10 to 4.

It lengthens the notice time before a curfew to not less than 12 hours before its implementation, and requires police to announce a predetermined expiration time of no more than four hours from the start of the curfew.

Only then would Chicago police officers be authorized to disperse gatherings of 20 or more people that Snelling deems “likely to result in substantial harm to the safety” of others, “substantial damage to property” or “substantial injuries.” Those who refuse the dispersal order could be arrested.

Before issuing the 12-hour notice for a temporary curfew at a specific location, Snelling would have to consult Deputy Mayor for Community Safety Garien Gatewood and jointly determine that there is “probable cause to believe that a mass gathering will occur.”

The ordinance states that “data supporting a curfew declaration” could include social media posts, flyers and other written materials, or a “history of mass gatherings promoted for a particular place by a particular promoter or on a recurring basis.” Signs would be posted in the designated area whenever possible. Ten minutes’ notice would be given before arrests are made.

Johnson argued this week that the downtown fireworks celebration on New Year’s Eve that went off without incident showed that Chicago doesn’t need another tool to ensure that young people are “where they need to be” and parent or guardians are “held accountable for their whereabouts.”

Hopkins made the opposite argument. He said the mayor “declared a time-and-site curfew” when he announced the city’s plan to keep people safe on New Year’s Eve and, “It worked.”

Johnson said Wednesday he has not decided whether to veto the new version.

Hopkins predicted that it would be a game-time decision for a mayor who cannot afford another City Council defeat on the heels of the rebellion that forced him to accept an alternative budget from opposition aldermen.

“If we pass it with 33 yes votes and 34 is needed [to override], I don’t think he wants to take a chance that one person will decide to be the dramatic game-changer and jump on the roll call to override the veto,” Hopkins said.

“There’s a certain strategy and gamesmanship involved in the mayor’s decision here. But the truth is, the mayor did everything in compliance with this curfew ordinance on New Year’s Eve with one exception. The ordinance provides flexibility in terms of naming the start time of the curfew. And the mayor had to limit the start time to 10 p.m. because that’s what the current law says.”

Although the New Year's Eve celebration was peaceful, Hopkins said Chicago cannot afford to let its guard down.

"In April and May, we start to see the teen trends happen downtown. Teens, like any other Chicagoans, start to get spring fever when the warm weather returns," Hopkins said. "This temporary time-and-place curfew is one more effective tool that we can use to prevent the trends from getting to the point of critical mass where there's hundreds of them on the streets and the situation becomes out of control."

A companion plan by Ald. William Hall (6th) to fine social media companies that refuse to take down notices of teen trends was held in committee after the Law Department raised constitutional concerns.

 "They looked at similar attempts to regulate social media companies. The social media companies typically respond very aggressively and run right to court," Hopkins said. "There was an anticipation that would happen because we didn't bring them to the table as we were drafting this ordinance."