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 9th
Circuit that returned it for a jury trial.
The 9th 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.
