IT IS ARGUED THAT THE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT THAT IS LIMITED BY A CURFEW IS AN UNENUMERATED RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE 9TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS. HOWEVER, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF JUVENILES ARE NOT NECESSARILY COEXTENSIVE WITH THOSE OF ADULTS. CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF JUVENILES, PARTICULARLY THEIR LESSER CAPACITY FOR REASON AND SELF-CONTROL, IMPLY THAT THE STRENGTH OF THEIR RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT IS LESS THAN THAT OF ADULTS. THUS THE JUVENILE'S RIGHT SHOULD NOT BE ACCORDED SUFFICIENT WEIGHT TO OVERCOME THE COUNTERVAILING PUBLIC INTERESTS SERVED BY THE CURFEW ORDINANCE. SINCE SUCH ORDINANCES INVOLVE NEITHER A SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION NOR A FUNDAMENTAL INTEREST, THEY SHOULD ALSO WITHSTAND EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGES. CURFEWS VARY WIDELY IN THEIR SPECIFIC PROVISIONS, AND AN EXCESSIVELY STRICT ORDINANCE MAY UNCONSTITUTIONALLY INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF JUVENILES. LEGISLATURES SHOULD ENACT CURFEW ORDINANCES THAT PROVIDE THE FEWEST POSSIBLE RESTRICTIONS ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF CURFEWS. A MODEL ORDINANCE, DESIGNED WITH THESE CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND, IS PRESENTED. SPECIAL PROBLEMS THAT ARISE IN IMPLEMENTING CURFEW ORDINANCES INCLUDE THEIR USE IN MAKING ARRESTS WHERE LESS THAN PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A NONCURFEW ARREST EXISTS. A COMPARISON OF CURFEW ORDINANCES AND VAGRANCY ORDINANCES SUGGESTS WAYS TO MINIMIZE SUCH PROBLEMS WITHOUT LIMITING THE USEFULNESS OF THE CURFEW ORDINANCE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)