I wanted to pull out one small part of the article, lest it slide into history without comment:
[Hartford Police Chief Daryl K. Roberts] said Hartford police decided on their own to set bail of $75,000 for Krayeske, which kept him locked up until a state bail commissioner ordered him released without bail.
Roberts said his officers set a high bail because Krayeske was "evasive" and "uncooperative" after his arrest. Krayeske, an anti-war demonstrator who once taught protesters how to behave if arrested, had asked for a lawyer and refused to answer questions.
So, which is it? Was the bail set high because Mr. Krayeske had previous convictions for acts of non-violent civl disobedience or because he was "evasive" and "uncooperative"?
Someone should tell the police department to put the shovel down before the hole gets too deep.
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.
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.
