# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 10 83

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Mel vi n F ol ke rts ; Id el la Fo lk ert s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Ci ty of W av erl y , Iowa ; Tro y Sch ne id er, i n h is in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 16 , 20 12
Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 25 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Mel vi n an d Id el la Fo lk ert s are th e l e g a l gu ard ia ns an d co ns erv at or s of th ei r
ad ul t so n, Trav is Mi ch ael Fo lk ert s. In May 20 08

, Trav i s w a s i nv es ti ga te d an d 1

ch arg ed wit h se xu al as sa ul t. All eg in g de pr iv at io n of hi s co ns ti tu ti on al an d st at ut or y

The Fo lk ert se s are refe ren ced in di vi du al ly by th ei r fir st na m es

. No di sr es pe ct 1
is in te nd ed

.r i g h ts

, th e Fo lk ert se s su ed th e Ci ty of W av erl y , Io wa, an d Troy Sch ne id er, an

in ve st ig at or wit h t h e po li ce de pa rtment. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary 2
jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt s. The F o lk ert se s ap pe al

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28
U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

I.

Trav is

, no w in hi s 30 s, ha s an i n t e l l e c t ua l di sa bi li ty, di ag no se d as m en ta l

ret ard at io n. A ps y ch ol og is t ch arac te riz ed hi s m en ta l ret ard at io n as “ se ve re,” wit h an IQ of 50

, be lo w th e 0.1 pe rcen ti le

. The ps y ch ol og is t rep or te d t h a t hi s di sa bi li ty

“ wou ld be ob vi ou s to an y on e, in cl ud in g an y po li ce of fic er, who en ga ge d in

co nv ers at io n wi th Trav is .”

In Ma y 20 08

, Trav is li ve d al on e in an ap art m en t bu t ha d su pe rv is io n m os t

wak in g ho ur s. On May 11

, Trav is ’s ne ig h bo r rep or te d th at Trav is ha d en ga ge d in

i n a p pr op ria te co nd uc t wit h he r so n. A pa tro l of fic er, who kn ew Trav is ha d a
di sa bi li ty, sp ok e wit h th e co m pl ai na nt s an d cal le d Sch ne id er fo r ad vi ce. The of fic er
th en sp ok e wit h Trav is , wh o was al on e. At th e of fic er’s req ue st , Tra vi s pr ov id ed a ph on e nu m

be r f o r h i s cas ewo rk er. The of fic er read Trav is hi s Mir an da rig ht s an d 3

as ke d if he un de rs to od th em ; Trav is sa id “ y es .” Afte r in te rv ie win g Trav is

, th e of fic er
le ft a vo ic em ai l wit h th e cas ewo rk er an d su bm it te d an “ In fo rm at io n Onl y ” rep or t to

Sch ne id er fo r fo ll ow- up

.

The ne xt da y , Sch ne id er wen t to Trav is ’s ap art m en t; Trav is was a l o n e.
Sch ne id er sa id he read Trav is hi s Mir an da rig ht s an d m or e fu ll y ex pl ai ne d th em “ [t]o

The Hon or ab le Edwar d J. McM an us , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct J u d ge fo r th e 2

Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.

Mi ra nd a v . Ari zo na , 38 4 U.S. 4 36 (19 66 ). 3

-2

-acco m

m od at e fo r hi s li m it at io ns .” Sch ne id er kn ew Trav is ha d a m en ta l di sa bi li ty bu t

cl ai m s no t to ha ve kn own hi s “ fu ll li m it at io ns .” Sch ne id er be li ev ed th at Trav is

un de rs to od hi s rig ht s. Sch ne id er co nt in ue d th e in te rro g a t i o n at th e po li ce st at io n,
whe re he in te rro ga te d Trav is in a co nf eren ce ro om th at Sch ne id er be li ev ed was le ss
in ti m id at in g th an th e st at io n’s reg ul ar, sm al le r in te rv ie w ro om

. Sch ne id er as ke d no nle ad in g qu es ti on s “ be cau se it se em ed ap pa ren t th at it wou ld be eas y to ge t hi m to sa y

so m et hi ng th at he di d no t do .” Acco rd in g to Sch ne id er’s repo rt, he as ke d ab ou t te n
le ad in g q ue st io ns

.

At Trav is ’s req ue st

, Sch ne id er ph on ed Id el la Fo lk ert s. Sh e sp ok e wit h Trav is

, who sa id he was “ ne rv ou s.” Sh e th en sp ok e wit h Sch ne id er. Sch ne id er rep or te d th at

Id el la

as ke d if I [Sch ne id er] wan te d her to co m e do wn and I sa id sh e co ul d if
sh e wan te d an d th at it was up to he r. Sh e sa id th at sh e th ou gh t [Trav is ]

wou ld be le ss ne rv ou s an d it wou ld be be st if I sp ok e to hi m wit ho ut he r
t h e r e

. I sa id th at he se em ed pr et ty ne rv ou s an d th at if he r be in g t h e r e

wou ld m ak e h im

wors e th en I wou ld rat he r sh e n ot be th ere.

W he n Id el la to ld Sch n e i d e r h e r pr es en ce m ig ht fu rth er up se t Trav is

, sh e cl ai m s
Sch ne id er “ sa id ok ay an d hu ng up .” The Fo lk ert se s cl ai m th at Sch ne id er ne ve r to ld

Id el la on th e ph on e th at Trav is wa s in le ga l tro ub le or wou ld be or was be in g
in te rro ga te d. Sch ne id er co nt i n u e d h i s in te rro ga ti on

. Trav is in cri m in at ed hi m se lf.

Sch ne id er dr ov e Trav is to th e Fo lk ert se s’s ho m e an d ex pl ai ne d th e si tu at io n to th em

. Sch ne id er arra ng ed al te rn at iv e an d fri en dl ie r b o o ki ng pr oc ed ur es , an d on e pa ren t

acco m pa ni ed Trav is du rin g b oo ki ng

.

Sch ne id er co ns ul te d wit h th e co un ty at to rn ey an d fil ed a c o m pl ai nt ch arg in g

Trav is wit h las ci vi ou s con du ct wit h a m in or , a m is de m ean or . An Io wa co ur t fou nd

hi m in co m pe te nt to st an d t ria l an d d is m is se d t he cas e.

-3

-The Fo lk ert se s su ed un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

, th e Am eri can s wit h Disa bi li ti es

Act, 4 2 U .S.C. § 12 13 2, an d th e Reh ab il it at io n Act, 29 U.S.C. § 79 4. The di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt s. On ap pe al

, th e Fo lk ert se s cl ai m

Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p ro ces s vi ol at io ns un de r § 19 83

, an d as se rt

di rect act io ns fo r di sp arat e tre at m en t an d fai lu re to m ak e reas on ab le acco m m od at io ns

un de r th e ADA and Reh ab il it at io n Act

.

“ Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t.” Tor

ge rs on v. Ci ty of Ro ches te r , 64 3 F.3 d 10 31

, 10 42 (8 th Ci r.) (en ba nc ), cer t. de ni ed

, 13 2 S. Ct

. 51 3 (2 01 1)

. Su m

m ary jud gm en t is pro pe r if th e pl ead in gs , th e di sc ov ery an d di sc lo su re

m at eri al s on fil e, an d an y affi da vi ts sh ow th ere is no ge nu in e is su e as to an y m at eri al

fact an d th e de fen da nt s are en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. Id

. . Thi s co ur t

vi ews th e fact s m os t fav or ab ly to th e pl ai nt iff s an d ta ke s as tru e th os e fact s as se rte d by th e pl ai nt iff

s th at are pr op erl y su pp or te d in th e reco rd

. Ak in s v. Ep pe rl y , 58 8 F.3 d

11 78 , 11 82 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

II.

The Fo lk ert se s al le ge th at Sch ne id er vi ol at ed Trav is ’s rig ht to su bs ta nt iv e du e

pr oc e s s

. S ch ne id er as se rts qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. Qua li fie d im m

un it y pr ot ect s

go ve rn m en t of

fic ia ls “ fro m

li ab il it y for civ il da m ag es in so far as th ei r co nd uc t do es

no t vi ol at e cl earl y es ta bl is he d st at ut or y or co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of whi ch a reas on ab le

pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .” Ha rl ow v. Fi tz ge ra ld

, 45 7 U.S. 80 0, 81 8 (1 98 2)

. Thi s

co ur t exam in es (1 ) whe th er the fact s al le ge d or sh own , co ns tru ed m os t favo rab ly to

th e pl ai nt iff

s, es ta bl is h a vi ol at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

, a n d ( 2) whe th er th at

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e al le ge d m is co nd uc t, su ch

th at a reas on ab le of

fic ia l wou ld ha ve kn own th at th e act s were un la wfu l. Se e
McC as te r v. C la us en , 68 4 F .3d 74 0, 7 46 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ).

-4

-To e s t a bl is h a su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n, th e Fo lk ert se s m us t

d e m on st rat e th at a fu nd am en ta l rig ht was vi ol at ed an d th at Sch ne id er’s co nd uc t

sh oc ks th e co n s ci en ce. Ak in s , 58 8 F.3 d at 11 83

. “ [I]n a du e pr oc es s ch al le ng e to

ex ecu ti ve act io n, th e th res ho ld qu es ti on is whe th er th e be ha vi or of th e go ve rn m en ta l

of fic er is so eg reg i o u s, so ou tra ge ou s, th at it m ay fai rly be sa id to sh oc k th e

co nt em po rary co ns ci en ce.” Co unt y of Sa cr am ent

o v. Lewi s , 52 3 U.S. 83 3, 84 7 n.8 (1 99 8)

. W he th er co n d u c t s h o c k s th e co ns ci en ce is a qu es ti on of la w. Terr el l v.

Lar so n , 39 6 F .3d 97 5, 9 81 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) (en ba nc ).

Bec au se a wid e va rie ty of o f f ic ia l co nd uc t m ay cau se in jury, a co ur t

m us t fir st de te rm in e th e l e v e l o f c ul pa bi li ty th e § 19 83 pl ai nt iff m us t

pr ov e to es ta bl is h th at th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t may be co ns ci en ce sh oc ki ng

. Mer e ne gl ig en ce is ne ve r su ffi ci en t. Pro of of in te nt to ha rm is us ua ll y req ui red

, bu t in so m e cas es , pr oo f of de li be rat e in di ffer en ce,

an in t e r med ia te le ve l of cu lp ab il it y , wil l sa ti sf y th is su bs ta nt iv e du e
pr oc es s th r es ho ld

. Lewi s , 52 3 U.S. at 84 8- 49

. The de li be rat e in di ffer en ce st an da rd “ is se ns ib ly em pl oyed on ly whe n act ua l
de li be rat io n is pr act ic al .” Lewi s , 52 3 U.S. at 85 1. B y co nt ras t, th e in te nt -to -h arm st an da rd m os t clea rly app li es in rap id ly ev ol vi ng , flu id

,
a n d d a n g ero us si tu at io ns whi ch pr ecl ud e th e lu xu ry of cal m an d
refl ect iv e d el ib erat io n.

Id

. at 97 8 (s om e in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. “ In ap pl y in g th e

Lewi s [in te nt -to -h arm ] st a n d a r d

, ‘onl y a pu rp os e to cau se ha rm un re la te d to th e
le gi ti mat e ob

je ct of [th e go ve rn m en t act io n in qu es ti on ] wi l l sa ti sf y th e el em en t of

arb it rary co nd uc t sh oc ki ng to th e co ns ci en ce, ne ces sa ry fo r a du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n.’”

Hel se th v. Bur ch , 25 8 F .3d 86 7, 8 72 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1) (en ba nc ), qu ot in g Lewi s , 52 3

U.S. at 83 6. The Fo lk ert se s ci te Sch ne id er’s (1 ) fai lu re to acco m m od at e Trav is ’s

di sa bi li ty du rin g th e in te rro ga ti on ; (2 ) in ad eq ua te in ve st ig at io n; (3 ) in ve st ig at io n of

Trav is to ret al ia te ag ai ns t Trav is ’s rel at iv es ; an d (4 ) ch arg in g d eci si on

. 4

The Fo lk ert se s ap pe ar to arg ue th at Sch ne id er at te m pt ed to ob ta in an d acce pt 4

a Mir an da waiv er fro m Id el la d u r i n g th ei r ph on e cal l. To th e co nt rary, Sch ne id er

-5

-Eve n if Sch ne id er’s be ha vi or vi ol at ed Trav is ’s fu nd am en ta l rig ht s, it do es no t

sh oc k th e co ns ci en ce. Fi rs t, Sch ne id er’s be ha vi or du rin g th e in te rro ga ti on do es no t

sh oc k th e co ns ci en ce: he al te re d h i s q ue st io ni ng st y le

, m or e fu ll y ex pl ai ne d th e

M i ra nd a rig ht s, an d in te rv ie wed Trav is in a le ss in ti m id at in g ro om

. Mo s t

im po rta nt ly, Sch ne id er cal le d Id el la at Trav is ’s req ue st an d in vi te d he r to th e po li ce

st at io n. Sch ne id er’s be ha vi or du rin g th e in te rro ga ti on do es no t sh oc k th e co ns ci en ce.

Seco nd

, th e ad eq ua cy of Sch ne id er’s in ve st ig at io n do es no t s h o c k th e

co ns ci en ce. The Fo lk ert se s arg ue th at Sch ne id er sh ou ld ha ve in te rv ie wed th e al le ge d

vi ct i m, Tr av is ’s cas ewo rk er, an d th e ap art m en t m an ag er. A ne gl ig en t fai lu re to

i n v es ti ga te in co ns is te nc ie s or ot he r le ad s do es no t vi ol at e du e pr oc es s. Ak in s , 5 8 8

F.3 d at 11 84

. A pl ai nt iff m us t d e mo n s t r a t e an in te nt io na l or reck le ss fai lu re to

in ve st ig at e. Am ri ne v. Br oo ks

, 52 2 F.3 d 82 3, 83 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). In ve st ig at or s
sh oc k th e co ns ci en ce whe n th ey (1 ) at te m pt to co erce or th reat en th e cr im in al

de fen da nt

, (2 ) pu rp os efu ll y i g n o re ev id en ce of th e de fen da nt ’s in no cen ce, or (3 )

syste m at ic al ly pr es su re to im pl ic at e th e de fen da nt de sp it e co nt rary ev id en ce. Ak in s , 58 8 F .3d at 1 18 4. The pa tro l of fic er in te rv ie wed th e al le ge d vi ct im an d h is m ot he r

an d vi si te d th e sc en e. Sch ne id er r ev ie wed th e of fic er’s rep or t, sp ok e wit h th e
vi ct im ’s m ot he r, an d in te rro ga te d Trav is

. Sch ne id er’s fai lu re to in te rv ie w th e al le ge d

vi c t im

, Trav is ’s cas ewo rk er, or Trav is ’s ap art m en t m an ag er do es no t es ta bl is h an
in te nt io na l or reck le ss fai lu re to in ve st ig at e. Any i n a de qu acy of Sch ne id er’s

in ve st ig at io n d oe s n ot sh oc k t he co ns ci en ce.

Thi rd

, th e Fo lk ert se s do no t pr es en t co ns ci en ce-s ho ck in g ev id en ce t ha t

Sch ne id er in ve st ig at ed Trav is to ret al ia te ag ai ns t Trav is ’s rel at iv es

. In 20 07

, Sch ne id er in ve st ig at ed a bu rg la ry of a bu si ne ss own ed by Trav is ’s co u si n’s wife

.

m ad e no at te m

pt to ob ta in a Mir an da waiv er fro m he r du rin g th ei r ph on e c a l l

, as Sch ne id er be li ev ed th at Trav is pe rs on al ly waiv ed hi s rig ht s (an d th e Fo lk ert se s ag ree th at Mir an da was n ot di sc us se d d ur in g t he cal l).

-6

-Dur in g th at in ve st ig at io n, Sch ne id er rep or te dl y fai le d to pu rs ue a le ad an d was ru de

to Trav is ’s c ou si n. In J an ua ry 20 08 , Travi s’s re la ti ve s m et wit h S ch ne id er an d hi s 5

su pe rio rs

. The Fo lk ert se s cl ai m th at th e ci ty ad m in i s t r a t o r was “ ag it at ed ” wit h

Sch ne id er at th e m eet in g. In S c h n e id er’s Ju ly 20 08 Perf or m an ce App rai sa l, hi s

cap ta in wro te ab ou t “ ve ry m in or ” in st an ces whe re Sch ne id er’s “ em ot io n s h a v e a

ne ga ti ve effe ct on job pe rfo rm an ce.” At hi s de po si ti on , th e cap t a i n s a i d a sp eci fic

in st an ce m en ti on ed in Sch ne id er’s App rai sa l “ m ay ha ve ” refe rred to th e bu rg la ry
in ve st ig at io n bu t he co ul d no t say “ sp eci fic al ly if th at ’s th e cas e or no t.” Sch ne id er

te st ifi ed he di d no t kn ow th e sp eci fic in st an ce to whi ch th e App rai sa l refe rred

, bu t he

was “ su re [th e bu rg la ry in ve st ig at io n was ] pa rt o f i t

. ” Th ere is no co ns ci en cesh oc ki ng ev id en ce t ha t Sc hn ei de r ret al ia te d b y in ve st ig at in g Tra vi s.

Fo ur th

, Sch ne id er’s “ ch ar g i n g de ci si on ” do es no t sh oc k th e co ns ci en ce.
Sch ne id er fi le d a co m

pl ai nt all eg in g t ha t Trav is vi ol at ed Iowa Co de § 70 9.1 4. The

Fo lk ert se s arg ue th at Sch ne id er reci te d no ev id en ce th at Trav is was “ in a po si ti on of

au th or it y ” ov er th e al le ge d vi ct im , a n el em en t o f th e cri m e. Th e Fo lk ert se s do no t 6

ci te

, an d th is co ur t ha s no t fo un d, a cas e in te rp ret in g th e el em en t be fo re Sch ne id er
fil ed hi s co m

pl ai nt

. Sch ne id er so ug ht th e ad vi ce of th e co un ty at to rn ey be fo re fil in g
hi s co m pl ai nt (an d la te r te st ifi ed th at Trav is ’s su pe rio r si ze pl aced hi m in a po si ti on

The Fo lk ert se s pr es en t an affi da vi t fro m Trav is ’s au nt

. Her “ co nc lu si on ” th at 5
th e bu rg la ry in ve st ig at io n an d Trav is ’s arre st “ were rel at ed ” is m ere sp ecu la ti on

. Se e Ba rb er v. C1 Truc k Dri ver Tra in in g, LLC

, 65 6 F.3 d 78 2, 80 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (h ol d i ng th at th e no nm ov in g pa rty m us t su bs ta nt ia te it s al le ga ti on s wit h su ffi ci en t

pr ob at iv e ev id en ce to pe rm it a fin di ng in i t s f a v o r “ ba se d on m or e th an m ere
sp ecu la ti on , con

jectu re, o r fan ta sy.”).

The Fo lk ert se s arg ue th at Sch ne id er reci te d no ev id en ce of th e el em en t in th e 6
tri al in fo rm at io n. Sch ne id er di d no t fil e it ; th e co un ty at to rn ey di d. Abs en t a sp eci fic
al le ga ti on , su ch as pr es en ti ng fal se ev id en ce or wit hh ol di ng ev id en ce, th e
pr os e c u t o r ’s i nd ep en de nt act io n in su la te s th e of fic er fro m li ab il it y

. Se e Am es v. Unit ed St at es , 60 0 F.2 d 18 3, 18 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 79 ); Eva ns v. Cha lm er s , 70 3 F.3 d 63 6,
64 7 (4 th Cir . 20 12 ).

-7

-of au th or it y ov er th e al le ge d vi ct im ). Se e Fr ye v. Ka ns as Ci ty Mo

. Pol ic e Dep ’t

, 37 5

F.3 d 78 5, 79 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (“ Alt ho ug h f o l l o w i n g an at to rn ey ’s ad vi ce do es no t

au to m at ic al ly cl oa k of

fic ers wit h qu al ifi ed im m

un it y , it can sh ow th e reas on ab le ne ss
of th e act io n ta ke n.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d al te rat io ns om it te d) ). Sch ne id er’s

be ha vi or do es no t s ho ck th e co ns ci en ce.

The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y gra nt ed su m

m ary jud gm en t t o S ch ne id er.

III.

The Fo lk ert se s al le ge t h a t t he ci ty’ s “ cu lt ur e of in di ffer en ce” to th e di sa bl ed

sh o w s it s “ de li be rat e in di ffer en ce” to Trav is ’s rig ht s. In li m it ed ci rcu m st an ces , a
lo cal go ve rn m en t m ay be li ab le fo r it s “ de ci si on no t to tra in cert ai n em pl oyees ab ou t

th ei r le ga l du ty to av oi d vi ol at in g ci ti zen s’ rig ht s.” Co nni ck v. Thom ps on , 13 1 S. Ct

. 13 50 , 1 35 9 (2 01 1)

. The fai lu re to tra in m us t ris e to “d e l i b e r a t e in di ffer en ce” to be

act io na bl e. Id

. A pa tt ern of si m il ar co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns by un tra in ed em pl oyees
is or di na ril y ne ces sa ry to sh ow de l i b e r a te in di ffer en ce. Id

. at 13 60

. It m ay be

, ho wev er, th a t “ev id en ce of a si ng le vi ol at io n of fed eral rig ht s, acco m pa ni ed by a
sh owi ng th at a m

un ic i p a l i t y ha s fai le d to tra in it s em pl oyees to ha nd le recu rri ng
si tu at io ns pr es en ti ng an ob vi ou s po te nt ia l f o r s u ch a vi ol at io n, co ul d tri gg er

mu ni ci pa l li ab il it y .” Bd

. of Cnt y. Co m m ’r

s of Br ya n Cnt y., Okl a. v. Br ow n , 5 2 0

U.S. 39 7, 4 09 (19 97 ).

The Fo lk ert se s ha ve no t al le ge d a pa tt ern of si m il ar con st it ut io na l vi ol at io ns ;
th ey ap pe ar to arg ue th at th is is on e of th e “ na rro w ran ge of ci rcu m st an ces ” whe re th e
vi ol at io n o f fed eral rig ht s is a “ hi gh ly pr ed ic ta bl e co ns eq ue nc e of a fai lu re t o e qu ip

la w enf or cem en t o ffi cers wit h s pe ci fic to ol s t o ha nd le recu rri ng si tu at io ns .” Id

. In

th is cas e, ho wev er, th e Fo lk ert se s ha ve no t al le ge d ev en a si ng le vi ol at io n of rig ht s.
Se e Ci ty of Lo s A ng el

es v. Hel le r , 47 5 U.S. 7 96 , 79 9 (1 98 6) (pe r cu ria m ); Sa nd er s

v. Ci ty of Mi nnea

po li s, Mi nn. , 47 4 F.3 d 52 3, 52 7 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 07 ) (“ W it ho ut a

-8

-co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n by th e in di vi du al of fic ers , th ere can be no § 19 83 or Mon el l

fai lu re to tra in m

un ic ip al li ab il it y .”); cf

. Sp eer v. Ci ty of Wyn ne, Ar k.

, 27 6 F.3 d 98 0,

98 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (n ot in g th at th ere m ay be si tu at io ns “ whe re th e co m bi ne d act io ns
of m ul t i p l e of fic ia ls or em

pl oyees m ay gi ve ris e to a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n,

su pp or ti ng m

un ic ip al li ab il it y , bu t whe re no on e in di vi du al ’s act io ns are su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h pe rs on al li ab il it y fo r th e vi ol at io n” ). The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y g r a nt ed

su m m ary jud gm en t t o t he cit y

. 7

IV.

The Fo lk ert se s as se rt di rect act io ns ag ai ns t bo th Sch ne id e r a n d th e ci ty fo r
di sp arat e tre at m en t an d fai lu re to m ak e reas on ab le acco m m od at io ns , in vi ol at io n of
§ 50 4 of th e Reh ab il it at io n Act an d Tit le I I o f t h e ADA. Fo r a pr im a faci e § 50 4

vi ol at io n, a qu al ifi ed in di vi du al wit h a di sa bi li ty m us t be de ni ed

, on th e ba si s of th e
in di vi du al ’s di sa bi li ty, th e be ne fit s of a pr og ram or act iv i t y o f a pu bl ic en ti ty

rece iv in g fed eral fu nd s

. M.P. ex re l. K. & D.P. v. In de p. Sch. Dis t. No. 72 1

, 32 6

F.3 d 97 5, 98 1- 82 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). Fo r a pr im a faci e Tit le II ADA vi ol a t io n, a

qu al ifi ed in di vi du al wit h a di sa bi li ty m us t be ex cl ud ed fro m pa rti ci pa ti on in or de ni ed

th e be ne fit s of a pu bl i c e n t i t y’ s se rv ic es , pr og ram s, or act iv it ie s, or be ot he rwis e
di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t b y th e en ti ty, by reas on of th e in di vi du al ’s di sa bi li ty. Lay to n

v. El de r , 14 3 F.3 d 46 9, 47 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). “ Th e ADA an d § 50 4 of th e
Reh ab il it at io n Act are ‘sim il ar in su bs ta nc e ’ an d, wit h th e ex cep ti on of th e
Reh ab il it at io n Act’s fed eral fu nd in g r e q u ire m en t, ‘cases in te rp ret in g ei th er are

ap pl ic ab le an d in te rch an ge ab le ’ fo r an al y ti cal pu rp os es .” Ba hl v. Co unt y of Ra m se y , 69 5 F.3 d 77 8, 78 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), qu ot in g Ra nd ol ph v. Ro dg er

s , 17 0 F.3 d 85 0, 85 8 (8 th Cir . 19 99 ).

As di sc us se d, no reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th at Sch ne id er in ve st ig at ed Trav is 7
in ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t Tra v i s ’s f a mily. The ci ty di d no t, as th e Fo lk ert se s al le ge , vi ol at e Trav is ’s rig ht s by fai li ng to di sc lo se to th e co un ty at to rn ey it s kn owl ed ge of
Sch ne id er’s “ res po ns e to th e cri ti ci sm ” fo r hi s b ur gl ary in ve st ig at io n.

-9

-Tit le II of th e ADA ap pl ie s to an arre st ee’s po st

- Mir an da in te rv ie w. Id

. at 78 8 (rev ers in g su m

m ary jud gm en t to de fen da nt ci ty on he ari ng -impair ed pl ai nt iff ’s cl ai m
th at de fen da nt fai le d to pr ov id e a c u s t o di al in te rro ga ti on be cau se of pl ai nt iff ’s

di sa bi li ty). The ci ty an d it s po li ce de pa rtment rece iv e fed e r a l f un ds

. Trav is is a

qu al if i e d in di vi du al wit h a di sa bi li ty. Se e 42 U.S.C. § 12 10 2 (d efi ni ng di sa bi li ty

ge ne ral ly fo r ADA pu rp os es ); § 12 13 1( 2) (d efi ni ng th e cat eg or y wit hi n Tit le II); 29
U.S.C. § 70 5( 20 )(A) (de fin in g d is ab il it y for Reh ab il it at io n Act pu rp os es )

The Fo lk ert se s argu e th at th e de fen da nt s fail ed to acco m m od at e Trav is whe n
th ey in te rro ga te d h i m w it ho ut a Mir an da waiv er, fai le d to pr ov id e co m m un ic at iv e

as si st an ce, fai le d to pr of

es si on al ly ev al ua te hi s le ve l of fu nc ti on in g, in te rro ga te d hi m
wit ho ut hi s pa ren ts /g ua rd ia ns , fai le d to reco rd th e i n t e r ro ga ti on or ha ve a wit ne ss

pr es en t, fa ile d to pr es er

ve the int er

ro gati on no te s, an d qu es ti on ed Trav is ag gr es siv el y

. Fo r di sp arat e tre at m en t, th e Fo lk ert se s cl ai m th at Trav is was de ni ed th e be ne fit of th e
ab il it y to co m

m un ic at e, a be ne fit affo rd ed ot he rs wit ho ut Trav is ’s d i s a bi li ty. The

Fo lk ert se s po in t to th e ci ty’ s pr ov is io n of co m m un ic at iv e as si st an ce t o ot he rs wit h

di sa bi li ti es , su ch as Am eri can Si gn Lan gu ag e in te rp ret ers fo r th e he ari ng -impair ed

. In es se nc e, th e Fo lk ert se s arg ue no t th at Trav is was tre at ed di ffer en tl y bu t th at he was

no t tre at ed di ffer en tl y

. The ir di sp arat e tre at m en t cl ai m is th us an al y ti cal ly si m il ar to

th ei r fai lu re-t o- acco m

m od at e cl ai m

.

Ti t le II an d it s reg ul at io ns req ui re th at “ qu al ifi ed pe rs on s wit h di sa bi li ti es

rece iv e effe ct iv e co m

m un ic at i o n t h at res ul ts in ‘m ean in gf ul acce ss ’ to a pu bl ic

en ti ty’ s se rv ic es .” Ba hl

, 69 5 F.3 d at 78 4, ci ti ng Loy e v. Co unt y of Dak ot a , 62 5 F.3 d

49 4, 4 96 -9 7, 50 0 (8t h Cir. 20 10 ); se e 28 C.F.R § 3 5.1 60 (a )(1 ) . “ Dep en di ng on th e

c i r c um st an ces , th is m ay req ui re th e us e of au xi li ary ai ds an d se rv ic es , su ch a s
in te rp ret ers fo r th e he ari ng im pa ire d.” Loy e , 62 5 F.3 d at 49 6- 97 (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. Und er th e m ean in gf ul a c c e s s s t an da rd

, ai ds an d se rv ic es “ are no t

req ui red to pr od uc e th e id en ti cal res ul t or le ve l of ach ie ve m en t fo r ha nd ic ap pe d an d

no nh an di cap pe d p ers on s,” b ut th ey ne ve rth el es s “ m us t af fo rd ha nd ic ap pe d p ers on s

-1 0-eq ua l op po rtu ni ty to

. . . ga in th e sa m e be ne fit .” Id

. at 49 9, qu o t i n g A l

e x a n d er v.
Cho at e , 46 9 U.S. 28 7, 30 5 ( 1 9 8 5)

. The in qu iry “ is in he ren tl y fact -in te ns iv e” an d

“ la rg el y de pe nd s on co nt ex t.” Se e Ar ge nyi v. Cr ei

gh to n U n i v

. , 70 3 F.3 d 44 1, 44 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), qu ot in g Lies e v. In di an Ri ver Cnt y. Ho sp

. Dis t.
, 70 1 F.3 d 33 4, 34 2-

43 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ).

Viewi ng th e fact s m os t fav or ab ly t o th e Fo lk ert se s, no reas on a b l e jury co ul d

co nc lu de th at th e de fen da nt s fai le d to m ak e reas on ab le acco m m od at io ns fo r Trav is ’s

di sa bi li ty. Sch ne id er al te red hi s qu es ti on in g st y le

, m or e fu ll y ex pl ai ne d th e Mir an da

r i g ht s, in te rv ie wed Trav is in a le ss in ti m id at in g ro om , dr ov e Trav is to hi s pa ren ts ’

ho m e an d ex pl ai ne d th e si tu at i o n to th em , an d arra ng ed al te rn at iv e an d fri en dl ie r
bo ok in g p ro ced ur es

.

The di sp os it iv e acco m

m od at io n is Sch ne id er’s ph on e cal l to Id el la

. Alt ho ug h

th e Fo lk ert se s co nt en d th at Sch ne id er ne ve r to ld th em th at Trav is was in le ga l tro ub le

or th at he wou ld be or was be in g in te rro ga te d, Id el la kn ew he r so n was at th e po li ce

st at io n an d was “ ne rv ou s.” Ass um in g th at Sch ne id er e nd ed th e co nv ers at io n aft er
Id el la sa id he r pr es en ce m ig ht fu rth er up se t Trav is

, Sch ne id er reas on ab ly in te rp ret ed

he r co m m en t to m ean th at Id el la was no t co m in g to th e st at io n an d was no t req ue st in g
ad di ti on al or al te rn at iv e acco m m od at io ns fo r Trav is

. On th es e fact s, th e de fen da nt s’

acco m m od at io ns were reas on ab le ev en if th ey were no t ne ces sa ril y “ be st pr act ic es

–

pr act ic es th at in ot he r ci rcu m st an ces co ul d be ev id en ce of a fai lu re t o reas on ab ly

acco m m od at e.” Se e Ser em et

h v. Bd

. of Cnt y. Co m m ’r

s Fred er ic k Cnty

. , 67 3 F .3d

33 3, 3 40 (4t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-