A federal judge has ruled that the men known as the Danbury 11 not be required to divulge their immigration status as part of their civil rights lawsuit against the city.
While attorneys for the city claimed the status was "at the heart of the case," the judge cited previous case law when she ruled that handing over the information would have a "chilling" effect on other immigrants seeking to enforce their civil rights.
"We are gratified, but not surprised, because this order follows a long line of cases saying the courts should be open to everyone," said Rebecca Heller, a law student with the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services organization at Yale Law School, which is representing the immigrants.
"People should not have to face harassment and deportation in order to vindicate their civil rights in federal court," Heller said.
The Danbury 11 is a group of day laborers who were arrested in Danbury and turned over to immigration agents in September 2006 during a sting operation involving local police officers.
The lawsuit filed by the day laborers claims that local police don't have the authority to enforce federal immigration law and that the officers used racial profiling when a local undercover officer picked them up at Kennedy Park.
[...]
"The judge has said they (the city) can't throw up a smokescreen and try to divert the jury from that reality," he said. "The judge saw through the frivolous nature of this defense and will make the defendants act like adults instead of politicians."
[...]
Local immigration attorney Michael Boyle said the city's attempts to gain access to the day laborers' immigration status amounts to a fishing expedition and a scare tactic that is often used in hope the plaintiffs will drop their case.
He added that, in general, most federal judges don't like to encourage such fishing expeditions.
"It's a very positive decision," Boyle said. "But I think for the city of Danbury it astounds me that this case continues to go on forever."
As for the gubernatorial candidate who called the Yale Law Students a bunch of "kids who have nothing better to do with their time."
Mayor Mark Boughton, a five-term Republican seeking his party's nomination in the gubernatorial race, has made national headlines in the past concerning immigration issues. He declined to comment specifically on this case because the matter remains pending.
Hark! Danbury's last honest man has no comment on the case? Sounds like he's singing a different tune compared to his dismissive comments four years ago.
Hartford Courant 12.14.06
A group of students at Yale Law School is expected to file suit today in federal court in a bid to find out how Homeland Security put together its sting on Sept. 19. The students want to know what role Danbury played in the operation and if the policies guiding the department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm may be unconstitutional. Their inquiry began with a request under the federal Freedom of Information Act. "We asked nicely," said Simon Moshenberg, a second-year student from Washington, D.C. "They didn't answer. We sued."
[...]
In an interview Wednesday, Boughton insisted that immigration police acted alone. They notified Danbury police this summer that they'd be making some arrests this fall but offered no other details, he said.
WVIT and WTNH 12.06:
WTNH: Boughton said the city played no part in the September 19th action...
WVIT: He [Boughton] said the city was not involved in the planing of the raid...
The residents of Danbury deserve to know once and for all whether the mayor LIED about his knowledge in this ICE raid. When pressed by state reporters, based on what I witnessed Boughton has during his press conference when the suit was filed, lets hope the city doesn't attempt to settle this case before Boughton is required to give his deposition and testify under oath.
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.
