With the first ad-hoc committee meeting (which was primarily designed to address the zone-hopping loophole that ties the hands of the police department from properly enforcing the sex offender ordinance), the following is video footage of the second meeting of this ad-hoc committee that decided to meet SEVEN MONTHS AFTER the first meeting of the committee AND one year and three months since Minority Leader Tom Saadi offered his amendment that would have close the zone-hopping loophole back in December 2006.
As you'll notice, all of the items during the second meeting of the ad-hoc committee has NOTHING to do with the zone-hopping amendment. Remember, that was solved in a matter of 1 minute and 45 seconds during the first meeting. Also added to the ordinance was language that stemmed from a police officer who recognized a sex offender who was in a child safety zone...not by the officer WITNESSING the person in the zone BUT by reading about the offender in the child safety zone from an article from the News-Times. Personally, I think if the offender wanted to push it, he could take the city of Danbury to court because the officer didn't see him in the zone and the additional language added to the ordinance during this meeting seems to indicate that the city is covering it's tracks.
At a later point, I'll explain why the largest item during this meeting (listing of all the child safety zones) could have been resolved during the drafting stage of the original ordinance back in 2006.
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.
