the common areas of schools, hospitals, office buildings and transport facilities.” Clearly, this provision does not encompass a private front porch, front yard or back yard. However, it does include sitting in a vehicle parked on a public street. It may cover a meeting or entertainment activity if such activity occurs on public property or other place open to the public.
The provision has an exception for “a meeting or scheduled entertainment activity at a theater, school, church or other religious institution, or sponsored by a religious institution, local education authority, governmental agency or support group like Alcoholics Anonymous.” There is no ambiguity as to whether the provision applies to an informal meeting at a private home, since the provision applies only to public places. There is also no ambiguity as to whether the provision applies to a gang member being at a friend’s home for a party or to watch a DVD so long as he or she does not go or return during curfew hours. Again, the provision applies only to public places.
Defendants contend the curfew provision is nevertheless overbroad. “The overbreadth doctrine provides that ‘a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 577.)
However, defendants’ overbreadth argument amounts to a claim that the exception for particular meetings or scheduled