Police did not charge resident Daniel Gaita for hanging Revolutionary War-era flags on town property, but they have told him not to do it again without permission.
Gaita hung four flags at P.T. Barnum Square during the second weekend of April, including the Gadsden flag, which the state refused to hang at the Capitol that weekend because of its symbolic association with the Tea Party group.
The Bethel police confiscated Gaita's flags, which he had padlocked to the flag poles.
...wait, it gets better.
Gaita picked up the flags Monday at the police station.
"The case is closed," Gaita said Wednesday. "I was told they could not find any law that was violated."
Police Chief Jeff Finch said Wednesday that the police department did not charge Gaita for hanging the flags, but told him to get permission before hanging them again.
[...]
Knickerbocker said at the time that it was the fact that Gaita padlocked them on town property without permission that was not acceptable. Gaita said his phone number was on the padlocks, which he used because he did not want the flags stolen.
It's pretty remarkable that someone would think that it's acceptable to padlock their own flags on public property...but again, we're talking about Bethel.
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.
