Sources tell me that anger is increasing over comments made by Public Works Director Antonio Iadarola regarding the air temperature problems at the police station.
According to sources, members of the police department are in dismay over the claim made by Iadarola in which he stated that the temperature at the police station has never risen over 73 degrees. Sources tell me that photographs, which I'm in the process of obtaining and publishing, that were circulated among police officers, and city hall officials, allegedly show a very different picture.
In a video clip that has gained popularity and a sharp rise in viewership on YouTube since it's initial posting six days ago, after Iadarola made the questionable temperature claim to the members of the council during their meeting this month, the director seem to backtrack on his temperature claim when confronted by Councilman Paul Rotello.
Sources also claim that the real problem that's being overlooked by the public stems with problems people at the dispatch department are experiencing, as well as a host of serious problems with the new police station, which are well known among the many rank and file members of the police department who use the building every day.
It appears that Iadarola's comment has probably opened Pandora's box when it comes to the serious concerns over the LONG list of problems with the new police station that have been in existence since the opening of the new building.
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.
