The city settled the suit for $400,000, Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton said. He called it a "nuisance" sum reached by the city's insurance company.
[...]
“This isn’t about civil rights. It’s about legal fees,” Boughton said. “If there had been a civil rights violation, they wouldn’t have settled. They’d keep going to recoup their millions.”
Boughton said the city’s insurance carrier will pay the entire $400,000, and the taxpayers will pay nothing.
“It’s their nickel. They get to all the shots,” Boughton said.
He said the lawsuit is over, and it did not change any city procedures or policies. There is no apology and there is no change to the city’s agreement with immigration officials on the 287 G agreement between Danbury and the federal government.
“At one point they wanted that agreement changed and they wanted an apology. The settlement calls for neither,” Boughton said.
Hey Mark, if you're having such a hissy fit over the case, WHY DID YOU AGREE TO SETTLE THE MATTER? Also, this case HAD NOTHING to do with the 287g program...it had to do with the city overstepping it's authority in an immigration matter...a matter that happened PRIOR to the 287g agreement...a matter in which YOU stated that the city played NO PART on the raid.
So using Boughton's logic, the city just did the largest settlement ever awarded in a civil rights case involving day laborers ALTHOUGH the city played no part in the raid.
You having problems following Boughton's logic also?
Oh...no word from the mayor regarding his misleading statements regarding the city's role in the 2006 raid or comments he made to the press versus statements he made in his deposition.
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.
