defendant or rather the person the handicapped person was merely afforded the same privileges available to the universe that is that's what i see is the case i agree on  communication and in this case is it not true that the cow that the a company and adult of the disabled person that is the wife asked and explained the communicating with the glass and telephone wasn't going to work and could she please personally communicate it to her husband to help this person with all time was absolutely right and then under section thirty five point one six equal to or and before to and i won't the end of the quote in determining what type of auxiliary even services are necessary show give primary consideration to the request of individuals with disabilities indeed in this you know we're not we're not watching a facial challenge at the policy and we're also not saying that while we firmly believe the district court showed too much deference to jail and prison officials because there are a lot of facts to support it we're not saying that deference shouldn't be part of the jury's reasonable this enough that there are a lot of facts in play here our point is simply that on this particular night should the jury decide whether the jail behaved reasonably forces focus the person with a delicate disability a family from the jail knew they should get whatever he wants because he's disabled of course not we're saying that he should receive meaningful access to the job programs and services so that he is able to participate in a roughly commensurate level define accommodation accommodation with or really how we would characterize it or title to as a modification would be to any kind of modest modification has established had proven to be necessary to put a disabled individual on the same playing field as a non disabled right and if judge moore it's a known disabled person and  disabled person with all simers present ourselves at the county jail of lerma county under these very same circumstance she's not disabled  s i understand your position is that you forwarded an accommodation to the all time or spatially because you afforded me in this case the same means of communication as you did presented to this patient that was not presented to the non disabled person i don't know that that's the proper analysis well maybe that's the wrong analysis but that's my question sure and my quest i think the answer to my question is not because you or your view is ok you talk to mike through the glass on a microphone or a telephone just the same way as more that's your accommodation and so that may be correct is that your legal definition of accommodation but i want to go back to the sections that i read and these sections say that you shall accommodate by relying on the country adult a company and individual to facilitate communication to the individual with a disability requesting the communication and the man's wife came in she said my husband as alzheimers walk walking she knows her husband i presume she's been living with him i forget what the record says but a good long time and she said i'd like to speak to him personally and help him with these forms because i'm sure he doesn't understand what's happened that was not  give primary consideration in this case the request was made that was rejected correct well it was not complied with because it violated the safety policy under stand i understand a handicapped parking space or a wheelchair accessible the ramp and just because an evil body person can use the wheelchair accessible anywhere doesn't mean that that building hasn't accommodated somebody with a disability in a wheelchair i think that's a wonderful example so judge borat shows up can see that and i park in the parking lot you're going to let me do that right ok good so we're not be treated the same are no you know right now up going back to my example here's this glass and here's this telephone the wife told you under these regs as the accompanying adult by husband has disability disability now you did not allow that accommodation correct we did not  treats its people its residents of that county with alls like them or slap them in jail keep them there all night long you didn't get the wipes the request of accommodation by the wife what accommodation did you provide if i m jail to mrs crump to notify her that mr problems actually in the facility that's not something that is ordinarily done second of all there was a second phone call conversation when mrs crocker arrived at the job she was allowed to speak with her husband that is that people in detention are allowed to communicate they can but a game recognize the hour of this communication was on lockdown hours and so this is an accommodation again the law doesn't say that medical personnel she refused to be off that this did pretrial it was an offer because i didn't get that for the record that office of mercy medical personnel to come and speak to the disabled person it was a miss crock refused because she didn't want to speak to the medical personnel for the glass and she didn't want to paperwork some nine hours later and was released without the assistance of mrs crofton without the familial contact is it which was the accommodation that was requested by mrs crocker to me that goes that custer rectally against and that's undisputed the response and saying we're not going to modify our security protocols and allow you to come back if you want to speak to my supervisor he's not on duty but i would call him home and so they routed out of bed at three am and he spoke with his crop and he done without and here again this does of the monza showing that you are disabled it means for example that airport an airplane pilot who needs glasses to fly does not have to be offered to fly without them and say that's an accommodation because every but he else can fly without glasses one see the necessity is showing that he needs the glasses for that communication and the wife told you that he needed this personal touch and personal communication and assistance in order to be able in order to be able to communicate with them and that is talking through a barrier of glass and telephones like everybody else who is disabled is not an accommodation necessary to have communication well novak another only took nine hours as proof that it wasn't necessary is according to you the fact that if the benefit is being cited as as the plaintiffs have mental the assistance of professional medical personnel to help him to live and in the end i think that may carry the day for you if that's in the record he and i don't know he was a crock the ability to talk to the medical professionals to discuss her husband's condition she refused has she done so well rusty and well perhaps she could have established a necessity by having a conversation with medical personnel ultimately it doesn't give the jail carte blanche to tell the man with a disability not kathy but stanley that tough like we don't like how your wife behaving so we're going to let you stay in this freezing cold and tell your will is over common and you ensure that mr kopp was able to interpret these forms at the same level roughly as someone who didn't suffer from his profound disability another key to the argument is that the he was afforded that he was afforded at the jail and he was assistant medical offered medical personnel to help the least that's what i understood the argument to say i did not understand that from the briefs or from reading judge being filled and i didn't understand it for the record i also in their motion for s judgment they never argued they provided him with some other reasonable accommodation they simply said we didn't have to give it in person and visit that at the end so that in them and there certainly it seems based on walker's testimony number one mr problems never you saying well maybe there was somebody else or something else for some way they could communicate she even seem to say i'm the person that needs to be is him saying i understand and i respectfully submit that it  your arguments this morning