Thomas Beecher, an attorney with the Collins Hannafin Garamella law firm who represented Burke Tuesday, declined to comment on what might lay ahead in the case.
[...]
Beecher declined to comment on whether Burke would apply for one of the diversionary programs provided by the court system. One of those programs is Accelerated Rehabilitation, a special form of probation that's available only to first time offenders.
Typically defendants who are admitted into this program received a probationary period with several conditions. The charge is removed from their record if those conditions are met.
Personally, I've long thought that, unless Burke is determined to fight the charges, Accelerated Rehabilitation would be the best option in this matter as it closes the case and all parties involved can move on with their lives.
...my 2 cents.
For more information on Accelerated Rehabilitation, click here.
POLL QUESTION
What do you think? Should First Selectman Burke enter an accelerated rehabilitation? Take a moment and answer the poll question at the top second column of the site.
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.
