Editor's Note: This post was last updated in October 2019.
Up until March of this year, trick-or-treaters in Chesapeake, Va., who were over 12 years old could be punished with up six months in jail, a fine of no more than $100, or both. Despite facing for its ghoulish policy, the Chesapeake City Council only modestly amended the statute’s applicable age and penalty.
in Chesapeake, trick-or-treaters who are “over the age of 14 . . . shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor,” which carries a fine of up to $250. Although the ordinance permits “any parent, guardian, or other responsible person . . . from accompanying said child,” no one is permitted to trick-or-treat after 8 p.m. or they, too, “shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.” That is a punishment not even a skeleton would find humorous.
Although the new ordinance eliminates the possibility of jail time, the amendments made by the council still criminalize trick-or-treating. Rather than enjoying the holiday, a 15-year old who asks for candy or a family trick-or-treating at 8:05 p.m. must worry about being in violation of this provision. Although a fine may not sound spooktacularly serious, the gravity of the punishment is not aligned with the conduct. Trick-or-treating violations in Chesapeake are now punished the same way as public intoxication (Sec. 46-157), public urination or defecation (Sec. 46-20), or interference with a police dog (Sec. 46-211). That’s un-boo-lievable.
Unfortunately, this batty practice also exists in several other Virginia cities. , , , , punishes trick-or-treating for children over age 12 and for any person after 8 p.m. as a Class 4 misdemeanor. In , the same conduct is a Class 3 misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine.
These ordinances make no sense
These ordinances unnecessarily criminalize behavior and impose penalties that are grossly excessive. They are overly broad and impose arbitrary limitations that are not demonstrably connected to public safety. There is a significant risk that these policies will not be enforced consistently, disproportionately impacting children and people of color and persons with developmental disabilities. Moreover, it is foreseeable these provisions could be used to justify police stops, using reasonable suspicion of an ordinance violation as a pretense. Each police stop or citation could result in serious and consequences, in addition to the criminal ramifications imposed.
These restrictions unduly limit expression
Reasonable policies that do not unduly burden the movement and expression of each person should be more than wishful thinking. Laws that unnecessarily restrict an individual’s communication and social engagement are antithetical to the First Amendment because they interfere with an individual’s right to freely communicate without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction. Restrictions imposed upon protected speech in time, place, as well as “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.” Such laws , without “distinguish[ing] between favored and disfavored solicitation… regardless of the solicitor's purpose or the content of the solicitor's speech.” Local ordinances that prohibit trick-or-treating, or soliciting, on Halloween would not likely pass muster under this rigorous constitutional standard. Yet, residents either remain unaware of potential criminal sanctions or celebrate Halloween in fear of punishment.
Laws like this are unnecessary
Laws restricting trick-or-treating do not provide the community additional protection against dangerous or mischievous conduct, like trying to mummify a house with toilet paper or smashing decorative holiday pumpkins. This bad behavior is already punishable under other laws — such as ordinances forbidding the or — without respect to time or age. Trick-or-treating ordinances of which most are unaware are unlikely to restrict any troublesome behavior that is not already prohibited. If these ordinances require such extensive public explanation without providing additional safety benefits, repealing these provisions is more effective than nonenforcement.
These provisions are no fun
These ghoulish limitations are too scary, even for Halloween. They also impose a severe limitation on a cherished tradition for many kids and families. Imagining all the little superheroes, vampires, princesses, pirates, and other trick-or-treaters who do not have enough candy in their bucket at 8 p.m. is simply terrifying. In other words, the only thing a 13-year-old trick-or-treater should fear is a stomach ache at bedtime — not jail.
This Halloween: Keep calm, carry a wand, and .
Every day across the nation, the ACLU is called on to defend all the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There's never been a more important time to support the ACLU and our effective work to protect civil liberties. If you like what you just read, help us continue to speak freely by .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.