An unlicensed pilot who stole an airplane from Danbury airport and flew it while he was drunk will likely serve another year in jail.
Philippe Patricio, 21, of Payne Road in Bethel, accepted a plea deal Wednesday in Superior Court that would sentence him to a one-year term for the June 2005 caper.
Patricio, who flew the plane from Danbury to the Westchester County Airport in New York with two teenage passengers, already pleaded guilty to a number of charges in New York and was sentenced to time served after spending about nine months in jail.
He is currently in custody while the Danbury case is pending. His sentencing in Superior Court is set for Aug. 2.
The agreement reached with prosecutors Wednesday will end the charges he faced in Connecticut state courts.
As part of the deal, he must serve five years on probation, during which he must undergo six months of inpatient treatment.
He must also undergo substance abuse evaluation and treatment and pay the city $5,000. He was also ordered not to further his training as a pilot, and not go to an airport unless he's a ticketed passenger on a commercial flight.
[...]
The recommended sentence is technically a five-year term, suspended after he serves one year, and five years on probation. He will only serve the five-year term if he violates conditions of his probation.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
Moral of the story: don't be an idiot.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
