fbpx

High Court To Decide How You Handle The Dangerous Mentally Ill

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Do LEOs have to make special accommodations when confronting violent, life-threatening mentally ill suspects in order to avoid violating the federal Americans with Disabilities Act?

That question is scheduled for a decision in the coming weeks by the U.S. Supreme Court. And if the answer is yes, warns an attorney team involved in the case, officer safety will be compromised because cops will be forced “to ascertain the causes of dangerous behavior instead of dealing with its effects,” producing “hesitancy and delay during emergency situations.”

The Court agreed late last year to rule on the matter, which arises from a split decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the violent resident of a psychiatric group home in San Francisco who was off her meds and threatening to kill her social worker with a knife.

When an SFPD officer and a sergeant responded and forced entry into the woman’s room, she “immediately charged at [them] with a knife while screaming that she was going to kill them,” according to a petition to the Court. The sergeant pepper-sprayed her to no avail.

When the suspect was two to four feet from the officer, the officer fired at her from the hip to avoid being slashed. The attacker then turned on the sergeant who “fired two or three times at point blank range,” striking and collapsing her. Even on the floor, she continued to swing the knife at the officer, until the blade was finally kicked from her hand.

The suspect survived and in a federal 1983 lawsuit against the two responders and the city and county of San Francisco she argued that the LEOs had violated the “reasonable accommodation” requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which tasks “public entities” with treating disabled individuals with special consideration.

In her view, supported by a “litigation expert,” the officer and sergeant to comply with that law “should have respected her comfort zone, engaged in non-threatening communications, and used the passage of time to defuse the situation rather than precipitating a deadly confrontation.”

The district court that first weighed the case held that “it would be unreasonable to ask officers, in such a situation, to first determine whether their actions would comply with the ADA before protecting themselves and others.” Given the circumstances, the court said, the officers’ performance, including their use of deadly force, was a “reasonable response.”

But when the plaintiff appealed, the 9th appellate panel in a 2-1 decision last February took issue with the lower court’s judgment. The majority denied qualified immunity to the defendant officers and declared that a jury should hear the case and “balance the risks” involved. They argued that jurors might reasonably conclude that the officers should have waited for backup and employed “less confrontational tactics, including the [disability] accommodations that [the plaintiff] asserts were necessary.”

The majority stated that officers cannot make an otherwise lawful entry to arrest an armed and violent mentally ill suspect if doing so would “force a confrontation” and there is “no immediate need to subdue [the suspect] and take [her] into custody.”

They were not persuaded by their colleague’s dissent, which pointed out that the officers faced “the need to resolve an ongoing emergency that involved a deadly weapon” and should get the benefit of the Supreme Court’s long-standing “prohibition on 20/20 hindsight.”

In appealing to the Supremes, a legal team from the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office asked the Court to “resolve whether and how the [ADA] applies to arrests of armed and violent suspects who are [mentally] disabled.”

Nationally, the appellate circuits are divided on the “reach and meaning” of the ADA in police encounters. Some circuits categorically prohibit claims against officers who act to control mentally ill subjects in urgent circumstances. The 5th Circuit, for example, has ruled that the ADA “does not apply to an officer’s on-the-street responses… prior to the officer’s securing the scene and ensuring that there is no threat to human life”; the requirement for “reasonable accommodation” kicks in only after that point.

Other appellate courts have acknowledged that “accommodations to a disabled suspect may be reasonable” in the course of arrest in some circumstances. But in practice, “these circuits have never found a proposed accommodation to be reasonable where exigent circumstances even arguably existed,” the petition to the high court asserts.

Only the 9th Circuit has “ever sent to a jury a claim that law enforcement officers should have provided reasonable accommodations for an armed and violent individual” who is not yet in custody.

Officers not only in California but nationwide deserve clarity on “what duties, if any,” the ADA imposes on them when they are “attempting to secure a potentially violent suspect in an uncertain and rapidly evolving situation,” the petition states.

The need for clarity is not an insignificant one. From 2.7 to 5.9% of suspects police encounter have “a serious mental illness,” the petition says. “Medium and large police departments estimate that 7% of their contacts with the public involve persons with mental illness….

“Moreover, when officers are dealing with irrational, unstable, and violent individuals, it is difficult to identify any particular accommodation as ‘reasonable,’ because no one knows what will work….

“When mental illness manifests in unpredictable, violent behavior,…officers must make split-second decisions that protect the public and themselves from harm. The dangers they face are compounded when they lack clear rules concerning what actions the law requires or forbids….

“[D]angerous criminal behavior and mental illness can exist side-by-side…. A knife attack on an officer or a civilian is no less deadly, just because the person holding the knife has been diagnosed with mental illness.”

Speaking for the Force Science Institute, executive director Dr. Bill Lewinski observed during an interview with Force Science News: “We endorse the use of communication and persuasion techniques with subjects whenever possible. But in situations where an officer is not able to build rapport, his or her ability to influence a suspect psychologically is, in reality, negligible. Consequently, the officer is likely to be compelled to deal with the situation tactically, focusing solely on the physical dynamics of the encounter and not on the subject’s mental condition.

“Even psychiatric facilities call the police when they can’t control someone. Employees of such places are specially trained to deal with individuals with mental illnesses. They’re trained not only in communication and persuasion techniques but in physical control measures. Yet there are times when they must concede to a forceful law enforcement approach because lesser options do not always work.”

Troublesome suspects with knives can be especially treacherous, Lewinski points out. “Force Science research has documented the exceptional speed at which a knife attack can materialize,” he says. “For example, a suspect armed with a knife standing seven to nine feet away can step and slash an officer in just two-thirds of a second.”

We’ll keep you advised as this matter plays out. The case is: City and County of San Francisco, Kimberly Reynolds, and Kathrine Holder, petitioners, v. Teresa Sheehan, respondent. For access to various legal filings with more details, click here.

GDPR

  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.

Analytics

We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.