U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section P.O.

Box 66738 Washington, DC 20035-6738 October 9, 1996 Brenda S. Wilmore Director Labor Relations Division Equal Employment Opportunity Office Government of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department Washington, D.C. 20001-2188 Re: Complaint Number XX Dear Ms. Wilmore: This letter constitutes the Department of Justice's Letter of Findings with respect to the complaint filed with our office on behalf of XX , against the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, XX complaint alleges that the D.C. Police Department wrongfully arrested him on XX and denied his requests for medication to treat his seizure disorder while he was in police custody. FACTS The Civil Rights Division has completed its investigation of Mr. XX complaints. Our investigation revealed that the District of Columbia trains its police officers and emergency medical technicians in the handling of individuals who are experiencing seizures. All D.C. Police Department recruits are issued a complete set of General Orders during training and are responsible for knowing this information by the time they graduate. The General Orders include provisions for dealing with persons who require any type of medical attention, including medication. Furthermore, all police recruits are required to take the "First Responder Class" during training. The First

Responder materials include training on dealing with persons with seizure disorders. Regarding the incidents of XX ,there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the actions of the D.C. police were discriminatory. Statements obtained from the police 01-00446 -2officers and emergency medical technicians involved in the incident leading to Mr. XX arrest indicate that Mr. XX was arrested for punching an emergency medical technician. Persons trained in the identification and treatment of persons with seizure disorders examined Mr. XX and determined that he was not experiencing a seizure. The officers were therefore acting neither arbitrarily nor discriminatorily in arresting Mr. XX Regarding Mr. XX allegations that he was denied access to his medication, there is again a lack of sufficient evidence indicating that the actions of the police were discriminatory. The statements of all officers responsible for Mr. XX while he was in police custody indicate that Mr. XX did not make any requests for medication and that, had he made such a request, he would have been granted medical attention as required by the General Orders. There is insufficient evidence that Mr. XX was treated discriminatorily while he was in police custody. LEGAL STANDARDS With respect to services provided by a public entity, such as police services, 28 C.F.R. S 35.130(a) states that "[n]o qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity." Furthermore, "[a] public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of disability-" 1) "[d]eny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service;" 2) " [a]fford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit,

or service that is not equal to that afforded others;" or 3) "limit a qualified individual with a disability in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aid, benefit, or service." 28 C.F.R. SS 35.130(b) (1)(i), (ii), and (vii). ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Issue 1: Whether the D.C. Police Department discriminated against Mr. XX in violation of 28 C.F.R. SS 35.130 (a), (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), or (b)(1)(vii) by arresting him on December 7, 1993. Because there is no evidence that Mr. XX was experiencing a seizure, and because it appears that the arresting officer had reason to believe that Mr. XX might be a threat, it is our determination that the Police Department did not

01-00447 -3violate the ADA or its implementing regulations with respect to Mr. XX arrest. Issue 2: Whether the actions of the D.C. Police Department during Mr. XX incarceration from December 7 to December 8, 1993, constituted discrimination against Mr. XX in violation of 28 C.F.R. SS 35.130(a), (b)(1)(i), (b)(ii), or (b)(1)(vii). Because there is insufficient evidence to find that Mr. XX made any requests for medication, and because the D.C. Police Department has policies in place to deal with such requests when they are made, it is our determination that the Police Department did not violate the ADA or its implementing regulations with respect to Mr. XX incarceration. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing information, we have concluded that the District of Columbia Police Department has adequately addressed the needs of individuals with seizure disorders and

that none of the incidents about which Mr. XX complained constitute a violation of the ADA. Therefore, we are closing Mr. XX administrative complaints against the D.C. Police Department. Please note that, if Mr. XX is dissatisfied with our determination, he may file a private complaint in the United States District Court under title II of the ADA. We thank you for your cooperation during this investigation. Sincerely, Naomi Milton Attorney Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division cc: XXX XXX

01-00448