Consensus not met on juvenile curfew ordinance

The San Marcos City Council failed to reach a consensus on whether to renew its juvenile curfew ordinance.

Council's vote ended in a 3-3 stalemate on Tuesday, following a public hearing on the ordinance during its regular meeting.

There are two main goals associated with the juvenile curfew ordinance: reducing truancy and reducing violent crime, according to San Marcos  Chief of Police Stan Standridge.

“So if the ordinance is ultimately not adopted, my bigger concern would be we have no antidote for kids just walking off campus who are already in the disciplinary system associated with the school,” Standridge said.

In June 2009, San Marcos City Council passed Ordinance 2009-28, establishing a curfew for minors. According to Section 307.02 of the Texas Local Government Code, municipalities must review their curfew ordinances every three years.

During Tuesday's discussion, Councilmember Maxfield Baker raised concerns over one of the recitals of the revised ordinance, which reads, “The Chief of Police for the City of San Marcos has provided statistical evidence concerning the effectiveness of the juvenile curfew ordinance.”

“Where are those?” he asked.  “Because they're not in here. Where is this data that the police chief who just found out about this policy put together for us?”

In response to Baker, Standridge broke down the number of curfew citations issued by the San Marcos Police Department over the last three fiscal years.

According to Standridge, the number of curfew citations SMPD issued dropped from 19 to five during COVID and down to zero within the last school year.

“It should be noted that the [daytime] curfew has some strengths associated with [it], because what we are seeing is the students who are in the disciplinary process associated with the school district, they are removed from campus and assigned to the DAEP — the Disciplinary Alternative Educational System,” Standridge said. “Those are the students that are then leaving against the instruction of [San Marcos CISD], which then triggers the involvement of the school resource officer.”

“The school resource officers tell me that the curfew is a very effective tool for keeping a majority of the students on campus to receive instruction so they eventually can graduate high school," he added.

Councilmember Mark Gleason also called juvenile curfew a "necessary and important tool" for SMPD officers to address truancy issues.

“One of the reasons that we may be headed for recapture for the San Marcos school district is attendance," he added. “We need to put every tool we can in the toolbox to keep these kids in school."

Gleason continued, “Let's talk about the violent crime portion of it. You go talk to anyone in my neighborhood — These officers need that ability to ask a teenager when they're walking down the street at 2 in the morning, 'Hey? What are you doing?' ... Between the yard break-ins, gun theft, the stabbings, the gunfire in my neighborhood, [it's] out of control. And I'm sick of it.”

Both Gleason and Baker asked Standridge to require the SMPD to collect data on the ordinance’s effectiveness.

Specifically, Gleason asked for SMPD to provide statistics on the ordinance’s effect on truancy. Baker then introduced a proposed amendment, asking for data on the demographics of those most frequently stopped for possible curfew violations. The proposed amendment passed 4-2.

Because the vote to reapprove the curfew ended in a tie, San Marcos City Council will bring back the ordinance for a first reading at its next regular meeting.