Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram

On Saturday, Danbury Police promised that any rumors of police coordination with ICE were unfounded and “reckless,” and assured the community that it complies with the Trust Act to effectively shield illegal aliens charged with certain crimes.

This prompted the Danbury Republican Town Committee to post a question on Facebook: Should Danbury officials comply with the state’s Trust Act, or advocate for Danbury Police to fully cooperate with ICE?

The Danbury Democrats quickly accused the Republicans of trying “to divide our neighbors and stoke anger (much like their dear leader).”

They defended Connecticut’s Trust Act by saying it “does not provide some blanket protection for people who commit serious crimes” and allows for cooperation in “certain circumstances,” including “the most serious felonies.”

The Democrats promised to “stay focused on bringing people together” and “keeping our community safe” without giving into Republican “fear mongering.”

Let's review some facts about The Trust Act.

The Trust Act, most recently amended in 2025, provides that law enforcement officers (state or municipal), bail commissioners, judicial intake, assessment or referral specialists, or employees of a school police or security department generally may not:

• Arrest or detain someone solely pursuant to a civil immigration detainer.
• Use time, money, facilities, equipment, or resources to notify federal immigration authorities about custody status or release of someone targeted by a civil detainer (with limited notification exceptions).
• Arrest or detain based solely on an administrative warrant (ICE-issued, not judicial).
• Perform functions of a federal immigration authority.
• Allow ICE access to interview someone in custody (with limited exceptions).

Cooperation with DHS/ICE—including detention pursuant to a detainer, interview access, or related notifications—is permitted only in certain circumstances:

1. The civil immigration detainer is accompanied by a warrant issued or signed by a judicial officer.
2. The individual has been convicted of a Class A or Class B felony (which includes murder and related offenses, certain sexual assaults, kidnapping, first-degree robbery, first-degree manslaughter, and other high-level violent crimes).
3. The individual is identified as a possible match in the federal Terrorist Screening Database or a similar database.
4. For allowing an interview, the individual is the subject of a federal court order.

Additional convictions added by the 2025 Trust Act amendments include roughly 13 offenses focused on serious violent, sexual, and child-related crimes. Cooperation remains allowed only if the person has been convicted of these offenses, not merely charged or arrested, while most lower-level crimes continue to fall outside the exceptions.

Remember, Danbury Democrats fully embraced the Trust Act. They promised to “stay focused on bringing people together” and “keeping our community safe” without giving in to Republican “fear mongering.”

That must mean Danbury Democrats believe it keeps the community safe to prevent law enforcement officers from notifying DHS/ICE when illegal aliens commit lower-level felonies and misdemeanors that generally fall outside the exceptions. For example:

Lower-level felonies that generally fall outside the exceptions:

• Assault in the second degree
• Larceny in the second, third, or fourth degree (theft of moderate to higher-value property)
• Burglary in the third degree
• Criminal mischief in the first or second degree (property damage)
• Possession of a controlled substance (most non-trafficking cases)
• Forgery in the second or third degree
• Identity theft in lower degrees
• Failure to appear in the first degree (in many cases)
• Reckless endangerment in the first degree
• Threatening in the first or second degree (non-specific versions)
• Certain fraud or bad-check offenses

Misdemeanors, all classes A–D, have virtually no exceptions:

• Assault in the third degree (simple assault) – Class A misdemeanor
• Disorderly conduct
• Breach of the peace / creating a public disturbance
• Criminal trespass (various degrees)
• Larceny in the fifth or sixth degree (petty theft / shoplifting)
• Driving under the influence (DUI / OUI) – first or subsequent (non-felony versions)
• Possession of a small amount of marijuana or other minor drug offenses
• Harassment in the second degree
• Stalking in the second or third degree
• Prostitution
• Public indecency
• Reckless driving
• Operating without a license or with a suspended license (most cases)
• Simple drug paraphernalia possession
• Issuing a bad check (lower amounts)
• Criminal lockout

Even lower-level infractions—including most traffic violations, noise ordinance violations, and minor municipal ordinance offenses—would also generally not be flagged to immigration authorities.

Research on criminal careers shows that a portion of people who start with "low-level crimes" do go on to commit more serious ones, especially those who become persistent / repeat offenders. Not everyone escalates, but some do.

That's why it's so hard to comprehend how any rational person could actually believe that preventing immigration authorities from even knowing about “low-level crimes” committed by people who already broke federal immigration law keeps anyone safe—except the illegal aliens themselves.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'