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

-2-

officers 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

-3-

violate 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