Supreme Court Considers Application of Americans with Disability Act to Law Enforcement Officers

by Bell Law Firm

I have been representing law enforcement officers (LEOs) and their families off and on for nearly forty years in various legal situations and crisis. Usually these situations involve occupational injuries occurring on the job (workers’ compensation), personal injury claims, administrative grievances, criminal investigations (state and federal) and marital issues involving divorce. Some of my good friends are LEOs and I generally receive a lot of referrals of clients from the law enforcement community. The average law enforcement officer is focused at investigation of accidents involving motor vehicles and criminal violations. Training for LEOs can be expensive and frequently costs about thirty thousand dollars to sharpen their skills in the venues of their work, traffic or patrol. The training, however, typically does not include any instruction at all on the medical issues that most mortals encounter as they pass through life. Recently, there has been a great deal of debate about the adequacy of LEO training as it relates to dealing with individuals who are suffering from mental illness.

For example, in a DUI investigation, there are medical conditions that mimic intoxication. In engaging the mentally ill on the street, there is almost no training on how to contend with the suicidal or psychotic person who is appearing to be uncontrollable. Today, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act requires police to take special precautions when trying to arrest armed and violent suspects who are mentally ill. The Court heard oral arguments in a challenge over how LEO contended with a person who had schizophrenia, as she was engaged in a very threatening manner with her social worker. In that case, the LEO forced their way into the suspect’s room at a group home, shot her five times as she came at them with a knife. At issue before the US Supreme Court are the American with Disability Act geared to protecting and providing accommodations of the disabled. It is urged upon the Supreme Court to require the LEO community to make “reasonable accommodations” when investigating a fact pattern that involves individuals who have mental or physical disabilities. On the other hand, the LEO has advanced that the ADA never required accommodations for dangerous encounters with armed and mentally ill individuals.

“Friends of the Court” briefs[1] filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, Ms. Sheehan, advance the notion that LEO failure to take into consideration the mental disabilities of a person will by necessity result in more unnecessary and unreasonable police violence, such as shootings by the LEO. Other Friend of the Court briefs, filed on behalf of the LEOs, advance the proposition that to rule in favor of the ADA in police encounters would undermine the effectiveness of LEO in controlling a violent and volatile situation, thereby risking the lives of not only the bystanders, but also the LEO appearing on the scene of the confrontation. The lower appellate courts have gone both ways on this issue, and thus, the case is ripe for decision by our highest court in the land. A decision is expected later this year.

James A.H. Bell is the founder of Law Offices of James A.H. Bell P.C  in Knoxville, TN. Mr. Bell has over 40 years of experience in both criminal and civil litigation and may be contacted by calling 865-637-2900 or by email at jbell@jamesahbell.com. The Bell Law Firm: Client Focused, Court Room Proven.

[1] A “Friend of the Court Brief”, or an Amicus Brief, is a document that is filed by a party that, while not directly involved in the litigation, would be affected by the decision or otherwise have an interest in the litigation.