1111 Country Club Road Middletown, Connecticut 06457
Dear Commissioner Boyle:
I am writing with regard to the incident last week involving Kenneth Krayeske which led to his arrest by the Hartford Police Department.
I recognize that security assessments are by necessity comprehensive, and I understand that our State and local law enforcement agencies must work together and share information. Law enforcement agencies also have the difficult job of assessing the information they receive. Nonetheless, I was disturbed to read in media reports allegations regarding the existence of a “list” of individuals.
It is my expectation that all State Police information is maintained in strict compliance with federal law. In this environment of heightened security, the use of information must be balanced with the individual rights of our citizens. In providing security and protection, we cannot permit the rights of individuals to be trampled.
The parade was a public event, and moreover an event at which public participation was invited. People also have a right to protest – and that right is one of the fundamental freedoms of our state and nation.
Most importantly, security procedures must be uniform and consistent in order to safeguard both the people and places of Connecticut as well as our basic freedoms.
Accordingly, I am requesting that you review the circumstances of this incident. Specifically, I would like to know how this individual came to the attention of State Police and the circumstances under which his name and photo were provided to the Hartford Police Department.
In addition, I am requesting that you evaluate existing procedures to ensure that information gathered by the State Police is reliable and reported to other law enforcement agencies in a responsible manner.
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.
