Title II – 42 U.S. Code § 1983
Title II May Not Apply To An Arresting Officer
A “Person with a Disability” may have viable claims under
Under 42 U.S. Code §1983 a person can sue for damages from officers and employees of the government: Federal, State, and Local. If you have been deprived of your civil rights, while a government employee is performing their job – you have a claim. Under color-of-law they represent, they kept you from liberty, life, or property (this includes freedom of movement); or any of your Constitutional Amendment Rights. You can make a claim in Federal District Court.
42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”
42 U.S. Code § 1983 and Mental Health Issues (TBI is considered Mental Health Issue):
Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Hainze v. Richards (20000 holding that, “Title II does not apply to an officer’s on-the-street responses to reported disturbances, or other similar incidents…prior to the officer’s securing the scene and ensuring that there is no threat to human life.”
The court denied the officer’s claims of “qualified immunity” finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiff was undergoing a medical emergency and was subject to force by law enforcement without any provocation whatsoever.
Officers may open themselves up to liability under §1983 and various state laws such as false imprisonment, assault, & battery.
The court found that the officer’s use of deadly force against the plaintiff with “mental health issues” was not justified under the Fourth Amendment, for purposes of the officers’ qualified immunity defense, and that the suspect had clearly established a right to be free from police officers’ use of deadly force.
In this case, the court identified that officers should utilize a different continuum of force on individuals who either have or are perceived to have a disability. This case highlights the importance of communication between the officer and the arrestee. It makes clear that the courts will consider a suspect’s real or perceived disability, and that law enforcement officers must do so as well.
Police Misinterpret TBI Symptoms as Mental Health Crisis
Advocates stress the need for better training and awareness among law enforcement to distinguish
TBI symptoms from mental health issues, and to provide appropriate support,
rather than escalating the situation unnecessarily.