Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Whether defendants violated the ADA when seizing plaintiff’s decedent, resulting in his death; Whether plaintiff identified a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law; Safety concerns; Wilson v Gregory; Roell v Hamilton Cnty; Whether defendants violated the Fourth Amendment when stopping the decedent’s truck & using a police dog

The court held that defendants-police officers were properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s ADA failure-to-accommodate claim where she failed to identify a “a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law” given the circumstances they faced when they tried to take her decedent (Booth) into custody. The court also held that plaintiff failed to establish a Fourth Amendment violation. The police fatally shot Booth, who suffered from mental illness, including “drug-induced psychosis,” when he was stopped and detained after plaintiff (his wife) placed a 911 call. Plaintiff alleged that the police violated the ADA when they did not accommodate his disability when trying to detain him. She also brought Fourth Amendment claims regarding the stop, seizure, and the use of a police dog. The district court granted defendants summary judgment. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the officers’ failure to “deescalate” the confrontation that occurred while arresting Booth constituted a failure to reasonably accommodate his mental illness disability. The court explained that its precedent provides that “an accommodation is not reasonable if it requires more than a ‘moderate’ change to existing policies.” Applying a case-by-case test, the court noted that in Wilson, it held that officers were not required to adjust their detention policies “if ‘safety concerns’ would arise from the change.” Here, it was well substantiated that Booth was displaying symptoms that could result in danger to the police and others. Among other things, his “wife and mother-in-law had both told the authorities that he now presented a threat to himself or others[,]” and he “barricaded himself in his home and placed guns all around it.” The court held that he “objectively posed a safety risk, so the officers did not need to deviate from their policies for high-risk stops.” Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims also failed where she was unable to establish constitutional violations that would strip the officers of qualified immunity. Affirmed.