U.S. Supreme Court considers accommodations under the ADA for cops on the beat

On Monday I had the experience of being present during oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court.  The case at point was Sheehan v. San Francisco Police.  I was the police practices expert on this civil case.  The case was originally dismissed at the District Court, and then reversed by the 9^th Circuit that returned it for a jury trial.  The 9^th found that there were issues in dispute on the second entry into the apartment of the Plaintiff and whether the ADA required the officers to make reasonable accommodations to her knowing that she was diagnosed as being mentally ill.  The City/County appealed the case to the USSC.

Of course this case could have significant implications for law enforcement.  I feel comfortable saying that the majority of people shot during police encounters could be classified as “persons of diminished capacity.”  For those of us in police work, that covers a lot of subjects we encounter.  They could be mentally ill, intoxicated, high on drugs, or suicidal. 

This was my first experience being present during oral arguments at the Supreme Court.  Justice Breyer recused himself as his younger brother was the Federal judge originally dismissing the case.  Each side gets 30 minutes to make its case.  Well, not quite.  I found the process somewhat disorganized.  It was more like 8, well really just 7 since Justice Thomas never speaks, taking potshots at the attorneys during their presentations.

For the most part, the Justices didn’t seem to be very interested in making ADA accommodations a requirement for the cop on the beat.  They seemed to be siding with the claim of the City/County that the officers’ safety was more important than the disability of the subject being confronted.  Two Justices kept coming back to the potential that the subject could commit suicide while the officers waited for back-up, special teams or weapons, or negotiation efforts. 

Justice Sotomayor seemed to be the one most interested in the welfare of the mentally ill person.  Surprisingly, Chief Justice Roberts gave the attorney presenting the Plaintiff’s case the best opportunity to hit a home run at the very end of the presentation when he asked, “Could you give us a two minute version of what the officers should have done in this situation?”  All of the Justices truly appeared to be interested in the case.

In a few months we’ll see what decision they make.  It could be monumental and force us to intensify our training and oversight of officers when they deal with this huge group of persons with some form of diminished capacity.  Or it could be just business as usual.  Hopefully, law enforcement will continue to train and supervise our officers to respond safely and effectively on these potentially dangerous calls, but still exercise restraint and compassion for these struggling members of all of our communities.  The issue won’t get any better; just bigger for the cop on the beat.