Attention News-Times, WTNH, WVIT, WNPR, The Hartford Courant, Univision, New York Times, The Immigrant, CNN, MSNBC, El Canillita, Comunidade News, Tribuna, Associated Press, etc, etc, etc...
Now that the Yale Law student's presser is over, and we learned the details in the lawsuit against Mark Boughton and Chief of Police Al Baker and the actions of the Danbury Polcie Department in last September's raid, PLEASE take note of the following questions and see if the mayor has an answer.
"Did you mislead the public when you stated to the media that the city of Danbury was not involved in the raid last September? If your answer is no, could you explain why the information from the Danbury 11 court case contradicts your statements from December? "
"Is it true that the booking report of the Danbury 11 lists a Danbury Police officer as the arresting officer?"
"Based on the brief to the court, is it true that a Danbury Police officer drove the van used to pick up the day-laborers?"
"Are you worried that your actions could have very well placed the city of Danbury in a lawsuit?"
The people have a right to know if the mayor was being honest when he made these statements to the press back in December.
Channel 8: Boughton said the city played no part in the September 19th action...
Channel 30: He [Boughton] said the city was not involved in the planing of the raid...
Now, because of documents obtained by a FOI request, we've learned:
1.: Information obtained from the FOI request shows Danbury police officer as the arresting officer on booking report.
2. According to defense attorney Simon Moshenberg, in brief to the court, the Department of Homeland Security states that DANBURY POLICE OFFICERS were the ones disguised as contractors and driving the van used to pick up the day laborers. This is contrary to statements Boughton made to the press in December and the city of Danbury has not issued an official response in any legal proceedings regarding DHS's statement.
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.
Attention News-Times, WTNH, WVIT, WNPR, The Hartford Courant, Univision, New York Times, The Immigrant, CNN, MSNBC, El Canillita, Comunidade News, Tribuna, Associated Press, etc, etc, etc...
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.
