Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling expressed strong opposition this week to a proposed ordinance allowing him to impose a ‘snap curfew,’ a power that some City Council members have been advocating for in response to violent gatherings involving youth.
During a court hearing focused on the city’s court-mandated police reform efforts, Snelling emphasized that he would ‘never use’ the snap curfew power, saying it is ‘not something that I asked for or that I need.’
His remarks, recorded in a court transcript, mark his most explicit rejection of the ordinance currently being considered by the City Council. The proposal would enable Snelling to implement a curfew with just a 30-minute warning, raising concerns among advocates and youth about its implications for their rights.
Youth participants involved in monitoring the federal consent decree took the opportunity at the hearing to voice their opposition to the proposed curfew, questioning the fairness of implementing such a measure with minimal notice.
Snelling further clarified his stance regarding the 30-minute notice provision, stating, ‘It would be unfair to the youth who are already in that location.’
Despite his reservations about the 30-minute notice, Snelling has shown a generally positive attitude toward the overall curfew ordinance. In a recent interview, he articulated his support for a preventive curfew, saying that he would prefer to have advance notice when anticipating gatherings that might escalate into violence.
‘If we had that information days prior to implementing a curfew in that location, that we would send out notifications to Child Protective Services, to parents, to everyone,’ he explained.
He appears to have made a clear distinction between his preference for preventative measures and the immediate, reactive approach suggested by the ordinance’s 30-minute provision.
‘If I had to call a snap curfew for a teen takeover where we know there’s going to be violence, it’s — it would be a moot point, because it’s not going to help us at this point,’ Snelling stated firmly. ‘And we’re not going to do it.’
The matter of who initiated the ordinance has sparked contention within the City Council. Alderman Brian Hopkins, co-sponsor of the ordinance, indicated that input from the police department was sought before introducing the legislation. However, fellow Alderman Andre Vasquez questioned whether the police department was genuinely asking for these additional tools or if the initiative stemmed primarily from the City Council’s perspective.
Hopkins asserted that the process was ‘mutual,’ stating that the police department played a role in requesting the ordinance.
Snelling’s candid comments about the 30-minute warning provision seem to contradict earlier statements from Deputy Chief Jon Hein, who spoke at the City Council hearing in support of immediate curfews, suggesting that they could serve as a necessary tool for ensuring public safety during potential teen takeovers.
Hein recounted a recent event where a notice given shortly before an incident led to multiple arrests and violent confrontations involving officers. This raised questions among some aldermen about how immediate curfews might differ from existing powers for police to issue dispersal orders.
Civil rights attorney Sheila Bedi, who is part of the consent decree monitoring team, remarked that Snelling’s remarks indicate the curfew ordinance may not address any significant issues.
Bedi emphasized that the proposal seems to aim more at generating headlines for its supporters rather than offering effective solutions.
The implications of implementing curfews also entered the discussion in relation to the city’s consent decree. Advocates have pointed out that the planned curfew could undermine the police department’s obligation to develop age-appropriate responses in interactions with youth, a key focus of the decree established post the tragic shooting of Laquan McDonald in 2014.
ACLU attorney Imani Thornton noted, ‘Improving the way that police treat young people is a critical change that is central to the success of the Consent Decree.’
Concerns were raised that endorsing the proposed curfew ordinance by Superintendent Snelling could represent a regression from these commitments.
Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, who presided over the hearing, did not provide immediate comments regarding the proposed curfew ordinance, but the discussions highlighted significant divisions within the City Council and raised vital questions about the balance of power and rights involved in the management of youth gatherings in Chicago.
Existing tensions over this controversial proposal will likely continue as the City Council prepares for a vote, creating a critical juncture for the relationship between the police force and the community it serves.
image source from：https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2025/06/12/chicago-police-superintendent-larry-snelling-says-he-would-never-use-snap-curfew-powers
