About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


73 Stan. L. Rev. 1401 (2021)
Policing under Disability Law

handle is hein.journals/stflr73 and id is 1449 raw text is: ARTICLE Policing Under Disability Law Jamelia N. Morgan` Abstract. In recent years, there has been increased attention to the problem of police violence against disabled people. Disabled people are overrepresented in police killings and, in a number of cities, police use-of-force incidents. Further, though police violence dominates the discussion of policing, disabled people also disproportionately experience more ordinary forms of policing that can lead to police violence. For example, disabled people, particularly those with untreated psychiatric disabilities, are vulnerable to policing even in medical facilities-the very places they seek to access care. Many are also arrested pursuant to aggressive enforcement policies aimed at removing so-called unwanted persons or regulating those labeled disruptive or disorderly. Though they pose no risk of physical harm, some are arrested and taken to jail, at times simply because they have no place else to go. This Article centers disability theory as a lens for understanding the problems of policing and police violence as they impact disabled people. In doing so, the Article examines how federal disability law addresses these ongoing problems. Disabled plaintiffs have alleged disability discrimination and challenged policing and police violence under both Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, another federal disability law and the precursor to the ADA. The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether Title II of the ADA applies to arrests, and federal appellate courts are split on whether and to what extent Title II's antidiscrimination provisions apply to street encounters and arrests. Although the Court granted certiorari to a case presenting the question, City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, it subsequently dismissed that question as improvidently granted. There is no telling when the question will reach the Supreme Court again, but before it does, it is important to develop a theory not just of liability but * Associate Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law. For helpful comments and feedback throughout the drafting process, I wish to thank Amna Akbar, Bradley Areheart, Natalie Chin, Ruth Colker, Mattias Decoster, Doron Dorfman, Elizabeth Emens, Katie Eyer, Sarah Lorr, Prianka Nair, Katherine Macfarlane, Barbara McQuade, Jessica Roberts, Jennifer Hope Shinall, Charisa Smith, Ngozi Okedigbe, Sunita Patel, Mark Weber, and India Thusi, and the participants in the Michigan Junior Scholars Program, Disability Law Section's Works-in-Progress Virtual Workshop, Women of Color Collective Junior Legal Scholars Writing Workshop, and the AALS Annual Meeting, Civil Rights Section Work-in-Progress Panel. For exceptional research assistance, I thank Sophie Bossart, Allyson Presskreischer, Michael Schultz, and Mallori Thompson, as well as Tanya Johnson and Anne Rajotte at the University of Connecticut School of Law Library. 1401