In 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held for the first time that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to arrest situations where the arresting officer has reason to believe the suspect has a disability such as a mental illness. The court held:
Turning to an issue of first impression, we join the majority of circuits that have addressed the issue and hold that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to arrests. But we emphasize, as have those other circuits, that the exigencies surrounding police officers' decisions in the field must be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of the officers' actions. We hold that, on the facts presented here, there is a triable issue whether the officers failed to reasonably accommodate Sheehan's disability when they forced their way back into her room without taking her mental illness into account or employing generally accepted police practices for peaceably resolving a confrontation with a person with mental illness. Sheehan v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2014) cert. granted sub nom. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, Cal. v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 702, 190 L. Ed. 2d 434 (2014) and rev'd in part, cert. dismissed in part sub nom. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, Calif. v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765 (2015).
In Sheehan, the Plaintiff was shot five to six times at close range in her room at a group home after the officers were called to assist involuntarily committing Sheehan. The officers knew Plaintiff was mentally ill, had been refusing medication, had a knife in her room, and had threatened to kill her caseworker. Upon arrival on scene, the officers learned the caseworker had emptied the home of residents. When the officers first tried to enter Plaintiff’s room, she raised a large knife over her head, refused to comply with the officers’ orders, demanded a warrant, and threatened to kill the officers. The two responding officers retreated and called for back up. The officers then decided to re-enter the room, later stating they intended to try to place Plaintiff in custody and to prevent escape. When Sheehan again raised the large knife above her head during the second entry, and refused to comply with the officer’s commands, the officers used OC spray to no effect followed by a volley of bullets. Sheehan survived.
The Ninth Circuit denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that its prior precedent regarding treating mentally ill commitment subjects differently than criminal arrestees placed the officers on notice that the second entry and subsequent use of force was arguably not reasonable. The court also stated there were factual issues for a jury to decide regarding whether the officer’s act of forcing a second entry provoked the need to use deadly force. The court sent the case to a jury for trial. The court also decided that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding reasonable accommodation options for a jury to decide.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiori and reversed in part. The Court concluded that the three cases cited by the Ninth Circuit were insufficient to place the officers on notice that the second entry into Sheehan’s room was unreasonable as a matter of law; it granted the officers qualified immunity. The Court also concluded that based on the circumstances faced by the officers, the use of force did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Because of deficiencies in the briefing, the Court declined to address the question regarding whether the ADA applied to arrest situations, or whether the officers needed to accommodate Plaintiff’s mental illness during the course of an arrest.
This Supreme Court decision leaves the Ninth Circuit ADA holding intact. The Ninth Circuit emphasized in its holding that Officers should try to de-escalate the situation where they are called to involuntarily commit a mentally ill person, rather than force a conflict.
It is undisputed that Sheehan had a disability and that the officers knew it at the time they encountered her. We turn, therefore, to whether the city discriminated against Sheehan by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation during the second entry. Sheehan asserts that the city failed to provide a reasonable accommodation when the officers forced their way back into her room without taking her mental illness into account. She asserts that the officers 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. We acknowledge that the officers were forced to make split-second decisions. A reasonable jury nevertheless could find that the situation had been defused sufficiently, following the initial retreat from Sheehan's room, to afford the officers an opportunity to wait for backup and to employ less confrontational tactics, including the accommodations that Sheehan asserts were necessary.
In light of the Ninth Circuit’s ADA holding, it is important for police departments to train its employee’s regarding options to diffuse situations dealing with non-criminal, mentally ill involuntary commitment scenarios. Though these subjects may in fact violate the law in the course of a police response, the Ninth Circuit has emphasized its belief that de-escalation and accommodation should be a part of the totality of the circumstances for evaluating the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force. It may be prudent to call an on-duty sergeant to the scene where safety concerns and time allows. An officer may also consider trying to bring in the services of a Community Mental Health Professional or a Crisis Intervention Team to engage the subject, attempt to deescalate the situation, and make a recommendation regarding any need to transport the subject to a triage facility, crisis stabilization unit, evaluation and treatment facility, or the emergency department of a local hospital. Paramount consideration should be toward protecting the public and law enforcement officers.