In Mayfield v. City of Mesa, published March 24, 2025, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit under Title 11 of the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. While the plaintiff, who is deaf, was driving home at night, a police officer observed her weaving in traffic and pulled her over. During the traffic stop, she requested an American Sign Language interpreter. Based on the footage from officer body cams, the officer and another officer communicated with the plaintiff using a combination of notes typed on cellphones, notes on a notepad, lip reading, and gestures. The plaintiff was given and able to complete sobriety tests, but did not pass those tests. She was taken to a DUI facility for a blood test. She requested an American Sign Language interpreter but was told that none was available. The plaintiff was charged with driving under the influence, but these charges were dropped when the plaintiff pleaded guilty to reckless driving. The plaintiff sued the city, alleging the officers discriminated against her by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation for her disability by providing either an in-person ASL interpreter or a video remote interpreting service after she was pulled over. The district court granted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiff's claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey and that alternatively plaintiff failed to state a claim under the ADA or RA.
The 9th Circuit disagreed about Heck v. Humphrey. Heck, which applies to ADA/RA claims, a plaintiff's civil claims challenging government conduct in connection with arrest and prosecution may not proceed if a judgment in her favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of her conviction or sentence. Here, a judgment in plaintiff's favor on whether the officers accommodated her in testing for a DUI would not invalidate her conviction for reckless driving, which was based on the plaintiff weaving in traffic before the traffic stop. But the 9th Circuit agreed that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for failure to accommodate. A claim under Title II of the ADA may arise where police fail to reasonably accommodate a plaintiff's disability in the course of investigation or arrest, causing the plaintiff to suffer greater injury or indignity in the process than other arrestees. There is no per se obligation to provide an on-site interpreter for a deaf person every time one is requested. The test is whether the person has received an auxiliary aid sufficient to prevent any real hindrance in her ability to exchange information. In the context of arrests, the court must also consider whether any exigent circumstances would render a proposed accommodation impracticable. Here, the body cam footage establishes that the plaintiff's understanding of the initial officer's instructions was sufficient to enable her to provide the information requested and complete the field sobriety tests, and thus communicate with each other in all material aspects. Likewise, in the DUI processing facility, the plaintiff was able to effectively communicate in all material aspects. Traffic stops, particularly for suspected DUIs, present exigent circumstances that limit the range of what would constitute a reasonable modification of police procedures. The safety concerns of a roadside traffic stop, the need to promptly determine a motorist's ability to drive, and the need to collect accurate test results before evidence dissipates all warrant acting without unnecessary delay. Because the bodycam footage would preclude the plaintiff from amending her complaint to overcome such evidence, the court properly dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.