Dan Barrett is the legal director of the ACLU of Connecticut. He previously directed litigation at the ACLU of Vermont and clerked for U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton in Connecticut. His litigation and advocacy work has focused on police accountability, privacy, racial profiling and First Amendment rights. He joined the Connecticut affiliate in May 2015. He holds degrees from Cornell University, Cambridge and Northeastern University School of Law.
We have documented 3 statements by Dan Barrett, in 2 cases. Each statement below gives the quotation, its original source and a link to the full case.
Case updates
Connecticut's prison-fee debt law: want updates?
We'll send an email if lawmakers take up repeal or changes to the law, if Lamont's office offers administrative relief, or if state officials answer critics.
Important updates only. Free. Confirm your email to start. Unsubscribe anytime. How we handle your email.
Role at the time: ACLU of Connecticut legal director
Mixed or conditional
Statement summary
Barrett said ICE presented an administrative warrant, not a signed judicial warrant. He withheld a conclusion while seeking more records and said lawmakers might need to broaden the protections.
“to figure out if our law was violated here”
Open source (opens in a new tab)Connecticut Public examines the Meriden warrant and TRUST ActBarrett statement and administrative-warrant explanation; Stafstrom closing response; New records and Rhonda Hebert response
Why we used this label
He withholds a verdict on compliance while questioning the warrant's significance.
Role at the time: Legal director, ACLU of Connecticut
Condemned
Statement summary
Barrett, the ACLU of Connecticut's legal director, said the daily cost Connecticut assigns to prisoners builds quickly enough to reach very high total debts in a short period.
“It builds so quickly that you can reach astronomical numbers within a comparatively short amount of time”
Open source (opens in a new tab)They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"
Why we used this label
Barrett directly criticizes the size and pace of the debt as unreasonably high, rejecting the fairness of its effect on people who owe it.
Role at the time: Dan Barrett, ACLU of Connecticut legal director, in comments reported April 29; the quotation date is not established
Condemned
Statement summary
Barrett criticizes the state claim against a potential settlement benefiting Victor Torres. He argues that incarceration debt can let the state offset damages arising from its own conduct.
“It's ghoulish, it's unconstitutional”
Open source (opens in a new tab)CT seeks to claim money from Mimi Torres-García's fatherBarrett response to the state claim and explanation of incarceration-debt collection
Why we used this label
The reference point is Connecticut collecting incarceration costs from former inmates. Barrett expressly criticizes a claim against a potential settlement as unconstitutional.
ICE agents arrested a man inside a Meriden, Connecticut, courthouse while activists demanded to know why masked agents were violating the TRUST Act. State officials called it improper; ICE called the arrest appropriate and said marshals impeded it.
Connecticut charges incarcerated people up to $347 a day and can collect the debt for 20 years after release, including from settlements and inheritances. A 2026 investigation found the state collected about $21 million this way since 2020.
