109th district State Rep David Arconti moves up the ranks at the General Assembly with his new title as Vice-Chairman of the General Law Committee.
Press release from Rep. Arconti's office:
State Representative David Arconti, Jr. (D-Danbury) has been named vice-chair of the General Assembly’s General Law Committee. Rep. Arconti is familiar with General Law having been a member of the committee since his first term began in 2013.
“I will continue to address consumer protection issues – a key focus of General Law – and work to promote and broaden Connecticut’s craft beer industry,” said Rep. Arconti. “These local brewers are offering consumers some great quality products while adding jobs to the economy and boosting our local grand lists. I appreciate House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz for providing me with this opportunity.”
The General Law Committee has cognizance on all matters related to fair trade and sales practices, consumer protection, mobile homes, occupational licensing (except licensing by the Department of Public Health) and all matters concerning alcoholic beverages.
First elected in 2012, Arconti represents the 109th House District and is Deputy Majority Leader. Besides General Law, he also serves on the Environment and Public Safety & Security committees. Arconti is now in his third term serving the residents of his Danbury district.
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.
