Overview:

• The curfew ran for a year, and expired on May 27.

• Some councilmembers question whether the curfew helps keep youth safe, or whether it criminalizes them.

• Two more council votes are needed to put the curfew back on the books.

The Fayetteville City Council gave preliminary approval to reinstating the city’s controversial youth curfew, which expired on May 27. 

The 7-2 vote on Thursday followed sharp debate on whether the curfew made the city safer, or instead criminalized teens and children.

The curfew is called the Youth Protection Safety Ordinance. It stirred controversy as it was enacted in May 2025 as a pilot. It was modified in June 2025.

The curfew prohibited people age 16 or younger from being in public from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.It had exceptions, such as for youth who were with their parents, who were working, or those participating in school, religious, or supervised recreational activities.

There was no criminal penalty for juveniles in the ordinance, though it originally had one that was deleted in the June modification.

Parents who allowed their children to violate the curfew, or who refused to take custody of their kids caught violating the curfew, could be charged with a Class 3 misdemeanor. So could owners and employees of businesses that allowed juveniles to be present in violation of the curfew.

The penalty was a $500 fine. People with more than three previous criminal convictions also risked jail time of up to 20 days.

In May, Fayetteville police Chief Roberto Bryan presented data about police interactions with juveniles and the curfew in his report to the City Council for the first quarter of 2026.

It showed more interactions and fewer charges levied compared to the first quarter of 2025—though not all of these were “negative” interactions, Bryan said. Incidents involving weapons, assaults, and drugs increased, while burglaries, robberies, shoplifting, car thefts, and vandalism decreased.

There were 13 field contacts with juveniles during curfew hours, and five cases in which juveniles were charged with crimes, Bryan’s report said.

This chart on juvenile crime in Fayetteville compares data from the first quarter of 2025 vs. the first quarter of 2026. Credit: Fayetteville Police Department

Hondros, McMillan Oppose Curfew

Councilmembers Shaun McMillan and Deno Hondros voted against reviving the curfew.

McMillan, who took office after the ordinance was enacted, called it a “youth ordinance/youth criminalization curfew” and questioned whether it violates people’s Constitutional rights. “There have been a couple of admissions that this is not an ordinance that is easily, legally enforceable,” he said.

The police department appears have had “some restraint in how this has been executed, and that points to the fact that this was unnecessary in the first place,” he said.

The city needs to build up young people, McMillan said. “If you had a philosophy and a leadership that puts the target on the backs of youth in this way, you will continue to breed backward, the ass backwards type of attitudes, that we have towards our youth,” he said.

Hondros spoke against and voted against the curfew last year. He did not debate the topic on Thursday. “My position is consistent, and hasn’t changed from the last time Council discussed this item,” he told CityView later.

Mayor, Councilmembers Criticize Critics

Mayor Mitch Colvin, and Councilmembers Derrick Thompson and D.J. Haire argued that the curfew enhanced public safety.

People feared that the curfew and Fayetteville’s similarly controversial ShotSpotter gunshot detection system would lead to harassment, Haire said. “But we haven’t received any of those concerns that were spoken about, that were highlighted with hot fire, as if some folk were getting ready to be arrested and thrown in jail,” he said.

Haire said his constituents told him they support the curfew and ShotSpotter. “Even some of the young dads that were in some of my community to watch meetings, they supported it,” he said.

Thompson said the police department’s latest statistics about the curfew contradict “what was insinuated” by its critics.

“I’m getting frustrated with the innuendos, and the data doesn’t prove what you’re trying to state,” Thompson said. “If you haven’t anything, any proof behind it, I don’t know what the end game is. But we need to move forward and do what’s best for our community.”

The mayor bashed the critics.

“The fear mongering that is constantly done by the groups that come in to tell us that we don’t need ShotSpotter, you don’t need school police resource officers, you don’t need protection in your communities—always come from outside the communities, and never from within the communities, that are experiencing that,” Colvin said.

“It’s called ‘Youth Protection Ordinance,’” he said.

“None of the things that they said would happen have happened with that or ShotSpotter,” he said. “And if one of our children are saved because police officers have the ability to intervene in something and prevent it from happening, we’ve seen the reward to the risk outweighs that.”

Two More Votes to Come on Curfew

The 7-2 vote on Thursday was preliminary because the council didn’t have the text of the updated ordinance before it.

While Hondros and McMillan voted no, Colvin and Councilmembers Haire, Thompson, Antonio Jones, Brenda McNair, Malik Davis, and Lynne Greene voted in favor. Council Member Stephon Ferguson was absent.

Greene said she would vote for the curfew despite her personal opposition to it. She voted against it in 2025.

“I know that the chief likes this tool and I’ve had conversations with him. And I also know that many in my district want this tool, so I will be voting in favor for those reasons,” she said.

The new, permanent curfew ordinance needs two more council votes to take effect, City Manager Doug Hewett told CityView.

The first vote could happen at Monday’s City Council meeting if it’s added to the agenda, he said. Then the council could take the final vote at its June 22 meeting, he said.

Senior reporter Paul Woolverton can be reached at pwoolverton@cityviewnc.com.


Did you find this story useful or interesting? It was made possible by donations from readers like you to the News Foundation of Greater Fayetteville, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization committed to an informed democracy in Fayetteville and Cumberland County.

Please consider making a tax-deductible donation so CityView can bring you more news and information like this.

Paul Woolverton is CityView's senior reporter, covering courts, local politics, and Cumberland County affairs. He joined CityView from The Fayetteville Observer, where he worked for more than 30 years.