Charlotte still does not have a 9 p.m. youth curfew. After another full-council discussion Monday, it does not have an approved pilot either.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Chief Estella Patterson asked council to let staff explore provisions and partnerships for a pilot of the uniform 9 p.m.-to-6 a.m. curfew the department has proposed for everyone 17 and younger. At-large Council Member LaWana Mayfield then asked whether Patterson meant testing the 9 p.m. start or first developing a pilot without changing the time.
Patterson said she meant using 9 p.m. so CMPD could gather local data on that rule. Mayfield said she could support a pilot, but not one that would begin by moving the curfew to 9 p.m.
Interim Mayor Rob Harrington said Monday's briefing was informational and any proposal would have to return as an action item. Charlotte's current Youth Protection Ordinance remains unchanged: a 10 p.m. curfew for children under 13, an 11 p.m. curfew for ages 13 through 15, and no curfew for 16- and 17-year-olds.
What the numbers do not show
Patterson presented the proposed curfew as a tool to reduce youth victimization and break up what CMPD calls teen takeovers, large youth gatherings where the department says it has seen crime, property damage, and harm to the community. The presentation did not give a threshold that separates a teen takeover from another large youth gathering. Patterson said the department would not create dedicated curfew patrols. The proposal would retain exceptions for work, supervised school, religious and recreational activities, parental errands, and emergencies.
CMPD's presentation counted 431 outdoor juvenile crime victims from 9 p.m. to 5:59 a.m. Of those, 127 were 16 or 17, the two ages the proposed amendment would add to the ordinance. Patterson said 91 percent of the victims were youth of color. She also said CMPD had counted 40 teen takeovers and described three as prevented.
The spoken presentation did not identify a reporting period for either set of figures, provide a comparison period or population, or explain what it meant for CMPD to prevent a takeover. Without those details, the counts do not establish the scale or trend of either problem.
Nor do those numbers show that moving the curfew to 9 p.m. would reduce either problem. At-large Council Member Victoria Watlington asked Patterson to explain the mechanism connecting the rule to the result. Patterson said the department's theory was that fewer young people outside late would mean fewer opportunities for them to be victimized or to offend.
The 91 percent figure described victims, not whom officers would stop or cite under the proposed rule. Enforcement raised a different issue. Watlington said her 18-year-old sister sometimes left work after 9 p.m. and asked how an officer would distinguish her from a minor violating curfew. Patterson said officers could make voluntary contact with a person, try to determine the person's age, contact a parent, and use discretion when someone said they were returning from work. City legal staff told council that an officer's visual assessment that a person appeared to be a minor could provide reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop to investigate a curfew violation. Mayfield argued that more enforcement was not the answer and urged the city to involve young people in designing any response.
Patterson said the material provided to council included three studies supporting curfews and four with mixed findings. She also acknowledged that other research concludes curfews are ineffective. Many studies, she said, were 20 or 30 years old and did not address the recent teen-takeover pattern. She argued that Charlotte should collect its own data.
In July, the council's Safety Committee unanimously advanced the flat 9 p.m. proposal. The full council heard an initial briefing Aug. 10, asked for more data and program detail, and took no vote. Monday's update brought additional CMPD figures and several possible pilot designs.
One word, several pilots
Asked earlier in the discussion whether she wanted a pilot or full implementation, Patterson said she preferred implementation but would consider a pilot to collect substantive data. By the end of the discussion, she was asking to explore a pilot.
The proposals differed over what to measure, how long to test, when the rule would apply, how young people would shape it, and whether council should enact the curfew first and monitor it afterward.
At-large Council Member Dimple Ajmera focused on whether a local pilot reduced teen takeovers that became violent. Council Member Reneé Johnson of District 4 proposed establishing baseline data, running a pilot for six months, and tracking juvenile violence, arrests, teen takeovers, repeat offenses, and overall activity.
Council Member Kimberly Owens of District 6 questioned whether the rule should apply based on the size of a gathering rather than to any minor outside after 9 p.m. Council Member Malcolm Graham of District 2 called for a narrowly tailored, youth-led pilot paired with year-round programs. Council Member Ed Driggs of District 7 asked whether council could instead adopt a curfew, receive ongoing reports, and change it if problems emerged.
Members also asked what the city would offer young people besides enforcement. In a separate effort, Raquishela Stewart, whose department oversees the Office of Youth Opportunities, said her team was developing a 10-month YMCA pilot to offer places and programs for young people outside home and school. She also said the city was preparing a partnership grant for outside organizations to create additional youth spaces. Members pressed for programs beyond the YMCA, more county involvement, and investment in areas without convenient recreation sites.
Harrington said the matter would return as an action item. The meeting left a pilot's provisions, partnerships, and measures of success unresolved. The available record does not give a return date.