Here are some points I found from the ordinance that are alarming. NOTE: The additions to the ordinance being considered are highlighted in bold:
1. Note that the city had to insert the term "school" in definition of a Child Safety Zone, section 2(a)(i). The addition of the word "school" begs the question...how can the council forget to define a "school" as a child safety zone within the ordinance? Does this mean that all the schools in Danbury do not have a "child safety zone" sign?
2. A listing of all the child safety zones are going to be listed in the ordinance. Make sense right? Everyone doesn't know what makes a child safety zone so it SHOULD be outlined in the ordinance. There's just one problem, this was proposed by the Democrats during the ad-hoc committee for the ORIGINAL draft of the ordinance BEFORE the vote in December 2006. This recommendation, brought by Councilman Ben Chianese, was requested by the Republicans on the committee and was never adopted into the ordinance.
3. The zone hopping problem is finally fixed but this begs the question, if the zone hopping nonsense wasn't caught by Minority Leader Tom Saadi, then it's quite possible the other problems within the ordinance would have gone unnoticed until someone attempted to enforce the ordinance. For example, a sex offender was caught on the parking lot of a school and is warned that he's violated the ordinance. The offender challenges the warning in court and it's found that the ordinance doesn't state that the parking lot of a school is part of the child safety zone (not second to last portion of the drafted ordinance in the above graphic.
Food for thought...
UPDATE: Since the posting of this piece, Corporation Council is on record in stating that schools are child safety zones by default because each school has a park (which are called playgrounds).
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.
