Sherman Connecticut News

Don Lowe Is No Constitutionalist

Opinion | Governance

Drones Are 1st Amendment Tools

In the grand theater of American politics, we spend a disproportionate amount of time worrying about the President. We fret over executive overreach, the weaponization of the Justice Department, and the erosion of democratic norms in Washington.

But the President of the United States cannot park a police cruiser in your driveway simply because you asked a difficult question at a town meeting.

In Sherman, Connecticut, residents are learning a hard lesson in civics: The most immediate threat to civil liberty is not found in the Oval Office. It is found in Town Hall.

First Selectman Don Lowe appears to be operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of the American system, particularly regarding drone journalism and the First Amendment. His recent actions—dispatching State Troopers to intimidate critics and filing baseless federal complaints to silence drone operators—reveal a troubling perspective: he seems to believe that publishing valid criticism constitutes "harassment" and causes "harm."

Lowe has called for further investigations into these lawful activities, implying that, if he had his way, there would be firm and brutal consequences for simply publishing the truth. This behavior suggests he views the Town of Sherman not as a civic republic, but as a private corporation where he is the CEO and the taxpayers are unruly employees to be disciplined.

The Right to Be "Difficult"

The First Amendment is often reduced to "Free Speech" in casual conversation, but its text contains a clause that local officials frequently forget: the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This clause exists because the Founders knew that government officials would naturally try to silence complaints. In Sherman, the administration has inverted this right. When a resident documents a safety hazard (such as unshielded floodlights) or a fiscal irregularity (such as ballooning construction costs), the response is not to address the grievance, but to attack the grievant.

He seems to believe that criticism is "insubordination," and that he has the authority to use law enforcement to manage his personnel.

Labeling a constituent’s inquiry as "harassment" is a convenient way to avoid answering the question. But in a constitutional democracy, there is no such thing as "harassing" the government with public records requests or code complaints. Accountability is not harassment; it is the job description.

Intimidation by Badge

Perhaps most disturbing is the administration’s comfort with using law enforcement as a personal security blanket. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable government intrusion, yet we have seen State Troopers deployed to "sit on" the properties of residents who have committed no crime.

This tactic, often referred to as "Command Presence," is a tool designed for high-crime areas to deter gang activity. When applied to a quiet residential driveway in Sherman, it becomes something else entirely: a "Terry Stop" applied to a home. It is a message sent by the state to the citizen: We are watching you. Stop talking.

A leader who understands the Bill of Rights knows that the police power of the state is a dangerous tool to be used sparingly. A leader who does not understand it uses the police like a customer service department with guns.

Shopping for Jurisdiction

This behavior reveals a chaotic approach to jurisdiction. The First Selectman seems to be "shopping for a cop"—looking for any authority, at any level, that will enforce his will.

He calls the FAA (Federal) to file nuisance complaints against drones, only to be rejected. He calls the State Police (State) to patrol local driveways, only to have them confirm no crime occurred. Yet, when it comes to the Town Code (Local)—the one area where he actually has jurisdiction—he ignores it until the State Building Inspector forces his hand.

This is not the strategy of a leader with a coherent ideology. A true Conservative would respect property rights and limit police power. A true Liberal would champion transparency and the right to protest. Mr. Lowe appears to be neither. He is purely transactional.

The CEO of Nowhere

Ultimately, the danger of this governance style is that it replaces the Rule of Law with the Rule of Man. If the First Selectman likes you, the code is optional. If he dislikes you, the police are mandatory.

We must remember that in a Republic, the citizens are not the employees of the town. We are the employers. The First Selectman is not a CEO with a mandate to crush dissent; he is a temporary steward of our resources, sworn to uphold a Constitution that explicitly protects our right to tell him he is wrong.

Sherman deserves leadership that understands the difference between a town and a fiefdom. Until then, we must remind Town Hall that their authority ends where our rights begin.