Lawsuit Challenges Law Enforcement Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington County, Oregon
WASHINGTON COUNTY, Ore. — Civil and disability rights organizations filed suit in federal court today on behalf of individual and organizational plaintiffs against Washington County, Oregon and the county’s 911 dispatch center, the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency, over their practice of dispatching armed law enforcement officers, rather than qualified mental health professionals, as first responders to mental health emergencies.
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Oregon, Disability Rights Oregon, and Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP represent Disability Rights Oregon and Joshua Wesley, a 28-year-old biracial man who called a crisis hotline for a mental health emergency in October 2022. Instead of sending trained clinicians to aid Mr. Wesley, as he specifically requested, the hotline transferred Mr. Wesley’s call to the local 911 dispatch center, which sent several armed deputies, needlessly escalating the situation.
“I joined this case because I strongly believe that mental health support should go to those who need it. So many things can go wrong when police are at the forefront of mental health crisis response,” said plaintiff Joshua Wesley. “I hope my story helps others in crisis and can bring about positive change in how we respond to mental health emergencies, both in the county and nationwide.”
The lawsuit alleges that Washington County and its 911 dispatch center discriminate against people with mental health disabilities by failing to provide them equal access to, and opportunity to benefit from, its emergency response system, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. When someone in Washington County, Oregon calls 911 for a physical health emergency, a dispatcher sends trained health professionals, such as paramedics or EMTs. But when someone in the county calls 911 seeking help for a potential mental or behavioral health issue for themselves or others, a dispatcher sends armed law enforcement officers.
“Responding deputies are not qualified mental health professionals capable of providing on-site psychiatric assessment, stabilization, and treatment to individuals in crisis. Their presence creates a substantial risk that they will exacerbate, rather than alleviate, the mental health crises they are intended to address,” the complaint reads.
“Across Washington County, people with disabilities face discrimination as a result of the county’s response to mental health emergencies. By dispatching armed law enforcement officers instead of qualified mental health professionals, people who experience a mental health crisis in the county do not receive the urgent medical care they require. The outcomes are predictable: people are frequently involuntarily hospitalized, arrested, and jailed, or even subjected to use of force by responding officers,” said Julian Clark, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Each person in Washington County, regardless of their disability status, deserves and is entitled to equal access to and opportunity to benefit from the county’s emergency response services and programs. With today’s filing, we continue the fight to make this truth a reality.”
Local and national experts, including the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and National Alliance on Mental Illness, have concluded that police should not serve as the default first responders for mental health crises, and accordingly recommend that communities invest in mental health providers to handle such emergencies.
“Everyone deserves access to healthcare during an emergency—that includes emergency mental health services during a crisis,” says Jake Cornett, executive director and CEO of Disability Rights Oregon. “Police are neither trained nor appropriate responders for someone who has broken their leg and calls 911—and the same holds for someone having a mental health emergency. Your zip code shouldn’t determine whether armed police or mental health providers show up when you call needing life-saving mental healthcare.”
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the county and the 911 dispatch center to halt the current practice of dispatching law enforcement officers as the primary first responders to mental health crises, and ensure that mental health professionals are the default first responders for mental health emergencies that do not involve a threat to others.
“Ultimately, this lawsuit aims to correct the misconception that people experiencing mental health crises are dangerous and require a law enforcement response,” explains Daniel Bartz, ACLU of Oregon senior counsel. “People in crisis should receive the care that they need and deserve, rather than being treated as though they committed a crime.”
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Disability Rights Oregon v. Washington County, Oregon
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Disability Rights Oregon v. Washington County, Oregon
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
CaliforniaDec 2024
Disability Rights
Powers v. McDonoughPowers v. McDonough
Every night, thousands of veterans sleep without shelter on the streets of Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the Department of Veterans Affairs owns hundreds of acres of land in prime West Los Angeles—land directly adjacent to a VA medical facility that was once earmarked to house veterans, but today is instead home to private school sports fields and an oil well. In November 2022, a group of unhoused veterans and a non-profit organization filed suit alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) failed to provide adequate housing and health care to veterans with severe disabilities in Los Angeles. These failures have significantly undermined veterans’ abilities to access the benefits they are entitled to by law, leaving many stranded on the streets after serving our country. The veterans sued the VA under the Rehabilitation Act, a federal statute that prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against people with disabilities. As a remedy, the plaintiffs seek the construction of significant units of permanent supportive housing on the The VA argued that a provision of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”)— a federal statute that prohibits federal district courts from second-guessing VA’s individualized benefits determinations—bars federal district courts from hearing the veterans’ Rehabilitation Act claims. Should the court accept this position, it would deprive veterans of a meaningful opportunity to have their rights under the Rehabilitation Act and other generally applicable nondiscrimination statutes enforced. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals. -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Disability Rights
Criminal Law Reform
Lawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to ProceedLawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to Proceed
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington, D.C. today rejected the District of Columbia’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the law firm Sheppard Mullin. The lawsuit contends that the District’s emergency response system discriminates against people with mental health disabilities by deploying armed police officers to address the vast majority of mental health crises while sending trained medical professionals to most other health emergencies. “This ruling moves us one step closer to bringing essential, life-saving emergency mental health care to D.C. communities. Qualified providers are best equipped to handle mental health emergencies with skills and compassion; police with a gun only serve to escalate, handcuff, and arrest,” said Ashika Verriest, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Far too many people are harmed at the hands of police during a mental health crisis, or simply receive ineffective care. This must end.” The plaintiff in the case is Bread for the City, a D.C.-based nonprofit supporting underserved communities. The lawsuit contends that the District’s unequal response to mental health crises violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The ruling will move the case forward, allowing the ACLU to show in court that a fully functioning mental health crisis response system that sends a medical, rather than a law enforcement, response to most mental health crises is legally required. “Relying on mental health professionals, not armed police, to serve people experiencing mental health crises is not just logical, it’s required under the law. Today’s decision made clear that communities can’t single out mental health emergencies for worse services than other health emergencies,” said Michael Perloff, staff attorney with the ACLU of the District of Columbia. The ruling comes on the heels of a recommendation made in a similar case filed against Washington County, Oregon by the ACLU, the ACLU of Oregon, Disability Rights Oregon, and Sheppard Mullin. On August 30, 2024, a federal magistrate judge recognized that sending police, rather than health providers to a mental health crisis, may be discrimination against people with mental health disabilities in violation of federal law. The magistrate judge recommended that the case proceed. More details about the case are accessible here: /cases/bread-for-the-city-v-district-of-columbia -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Judge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with DisabilitiesJudge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with Disabilities
WASHINGTON – A federal court granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in a case filed on behalf of people with disabilities on parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C., ordering immediate action to address discriminatory conditions faced by the two named plaintiffs. The court also denied the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP, challenges the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C. for systematically ignoring the needs of people with disabilities, thereby setting them up for failure on supervision and putting them at constant risk of sanctions, including incarceration. As the court held in its decision, such accommodations are likely required under federal disability law, specifically the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The preliminary injunction requires that the United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the two federal agencies responsible for supervision in D.C., assess what reasonable accommodations the two named plaintiffs require to have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision, and provide all such required accommodations. “Absent an injunction,” the court’s decision reads, “the Parolees will be forced to participate in the Government’s supervision programs on an unequal footing just because of their disabilities.” People on supervision in D.C. are required to comply with myriad and onerous rules. For people with disabilities, navigating these complex conditions is even more challenging. For example, Plaintiff Mr. Mathis — a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure that limits his ability to walk — struggles to travel throughout the city to attend frequent supervision meetings that often conflict with necessary medical procedures and hospitalizations. His supervision officer required him to wear an ankle monitor even after his doctor warned the monitor would jeopardize his health due to his heart condition. Plaintiff Mr. Davis, who lives with chronic pain stemming from third-degree burns as well as mental health conditions, also faces disability-related barriers getting to required meetings. Yet failing to meet any of these conditions, even something as simple as missing an appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. The court agreed that “absent immediate relief, the Parolees will face irreparable harm; namely, obstacles to success on supervision solely because of their disabilities, which expose them to downstream harms like revocation and reincarceration.” The court did not decide whether it will ultimately certify a class that could yield relief for all people on supervision in D.C. who need accommodations. Instead, the court directed the parties to agree on a schedule for further proceedings on that issue. “The undue hardships faced by people with disabilities on federal criminal supervision in the District of Columbia have gone unaddressed for too long,” said Scott Michelman, legal director, ACLU of the District of Columbia. “This decision is a victory for equal treatment and common sense.” “The Court’s opinion emphatically rejects the federal government's ‘do-nothing’ policy for people with disabilities on supervision in Washington, D.C., who have been forced to navigate onerous requirements without accommodations for decades,” said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “This ruling ensures that our named Plaintiffs will have the accommodations they need to have a fair shot at completing parole and remaining in their communities.“ “We are thrilled the Court recognized that the Parole Commission and CSOSA must accommodate our clients’ disabilities so that they have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision,” said Zoé Friedland, staff attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. “We will keep fighting to make this relief permanent and systemic so that all people on supervision have an equal chance to succeed.” The decision on the preliminary injunction can be found here: /cases/mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission?document=Preliminary-Injunction-Opinion The complaint can be found here: /documents/w-mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission-complaint