Chuck, The 8th Cir. held: "no reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations for Travis's disability. Schneider altered his questioning style, more fully explained the Miranda rights, interviewed Travis in a less intimidating room, drove Travis to his parents' home and explained the situation to them, and arranged alternative and friendlier booking procedures. The dispositive accommodation is Schneider's phone call to Idella. Although the Folkertses contend that Schneider never told them that Travis was in legal trouble or that he would be or was being interrogated, Idella knew her son was at the police station and was "nervous." Assuming that Schneider ended the conversation after Idella said her presence might further upset Travis, Schneider reasonably interpreted her comment to mean that Idella was not coming to the station and was not requesting additional or alternative accommodations for Travis. On these facts, the defendants' accommodations were reasonable even if they were not necessarily "best practices-practices that in other circumstances could be evidence of a failure to reasonably accommodate." Folkerts v. City of Waverly, Iowa, 707 F.3d 975, 984 (8th Cir. 2013). Thanks, Moses Johnson, Asst. City Attorney, Anaheim mjohnson@anaheim.net<mailto:mjohnson@anaheim.net> From: Policeadvisors [mailto:policeadvisors-bounces@lists.imla.org] On Behalf Of Duke, Neil Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 9:35 AM To: Chuck Thompson Cc: 'policeadvisors@lists.imla.org' (policeadvisors@lists.imla.org); federal@lists.imla.org; cityattorneys@lists.imla.org Subject: Re: [Policeadvisors] ADA - police interrogations - member needs help Instructive. See Folkerts v. City of Waverly. 8th Circuit, February 25, 2013, no. 1083--2013 U.S App. Lexis 3847. Sent from my iPad On May 21, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Chuck Thompson <cthompson@imla.org<mailto:cthompson@imla.org>> wrote: This is the question below and I'll forward your response along. Please help. Chuck I had a question come up regarding police interrogations and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Has this question previously been posted on the listserv? A defense attorney here has sent a letter to a police detective regarding an investigation of her juvenile client. The attorney states that her client has some cognitive disabilities. The attorney is requiring the detective to send a list of documents before the attorney will make the client available for an interview. Among other things, the attorney requires a list of all reasonable accommodations the detective plans to provide for the juvenile along with documentation that the detective has been trained specifically in the area of interviewing a child with special needs. I believe that a request for accommodations needs to be more specific and should set out what accommodation is required, rather than having the detective list what she plans on providing. However, before I get there I am wondering whether the ADA even applies to police interrogations. Has this issue come up previously? <image001.png> Charles W Thompson, Jr Executive Director / General Counsel at International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc. <image002.png> A 51 Monroe St., Suite 404, Rockville, MD, 20850 <image003.jpg><http://www.facebook.com/IMLA-259977855541/> <image004.jpg><http://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> <image005.jpg><http://twitter.com/imlalegal> <image006.jpg><http://soundcloud.com/internationalmunicipallawyersassociation> P (202) 466-5424 ext. 7110 M (240)-876-6790 D (202) 742-1016 W www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/> Plan Ahead! IMLA's 83rd Annual Conference<http://imla.org/events/conferences>, October 17-21 in Houston, TX! _______________________________________________ Policeadvisors mailing list Policeadvisors@lists.imla.org<mailto:Policeadvisors@lists.imla.org> http://lists.imla.org/mailman/listinfo/policeadvisors_lists.imla.org ________________________________ NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission with any attachments may constitute an attorney-client communication, protected health information (PHI) or other confidential information that is in fact confidential, legally protected from disclosure and/or protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient, please maintain confidentiality and be aware that forwarding this e-mail to others may result in a waiver of these protections and privileges and regardless electronic communications may be at times illegally accessed and viewed. If you are not the intended recipient, this e-mail is not intended for transmission to you, nor to be read, reviewed, used, distributed or even received by you or any other unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please double delete it from your system immediately without copying, reading or disseminating it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can be corrected. Thank you very much. ________________________________ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAWS. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, and delete the original message immediately. Thank you.