Lie often and boldly and you just might be deemed to be telling the truth. Isn't that what Orwell taught? Daryl Roberts of the Hartford Police Department appears to have read his Orwell.
Roberts, the chief of the city's police department, testified yesterday before the Connecticut Legislature about the arrest of a client of mine, Ken Krayeske. Krayeske was arrested as he took pictures of the governor during her inaugural parade. One Press Account
Just why he was arrested has become a topic of much discussion in the state. Legislative hearings have taken place before we've even had our first pre-trial.
Three lay eyewitnesses have come forward to say that they saw the arrest. Mr. Krayeske stood taking photographs when he was taken into custody.
A police report by the arresting officer notes that Krayeske was targeted by the state police as a potential threat, as were, apparently, other people designated as activitists. Roberts testified that Krayeske was not targeted for that reason. Who to believe, the arresting officer or the bureaucrat playing spin doctor?
Eyewitnesses say Krayeske was doing no more than taking pictures. The chief testified that the man "breached the parade route." The spin doctor is out of control.
Eyewitnesses say Krayeske was taking photographs when he was arrested. The chief isn't sure whether the man had a camera.
The case is a frightening prism through which to consider civil liberties. One lawmaker at the hearing thought it unfortunate that law enforcement was questioned at all. Had the arrests occurred immediately after 9-11, the lawmaker mused, we'd be congratulating the officer. Perhaps that lawmaker would have. I count him a casualty to the war on terror.
I wish Chief Roberts had competent and admissible testimony to offer in the Krayeske case. Something tells me he'd be singing soprano shortly after his cross-examination began.
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.
