THE ASSOCIATION FOR T
CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL)
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL
CHALLENGING THE ADEQ
THEY HAVE PERFORMED
INFORMATION ACT (FOIA
ABOUT THEIR FEBRUARY
CURIAE BRIEF ON BEHAL
BE WELL. TAKE CARE. KEEP YOURSE
# W (AACL)
# MICHAEL A. AYELE
# ANTI-RACIST HUMAN RIGHTS ACTI
# AUDIO-VISUAL MEDIA ANALYST
# ANTI-PROPAGANDA JOURNALIST
THE ADVANCEMENT OF
FILES AN APPEAL WITH
L ON DISABILITY (NCD)
QUACY OF THE SEARCH
D FOR THE FREEDOM OF
A) REQUEST SUBMITTED
Y 17TH 2015 AMICUS
LF OF TERESA SHEEHAN.
ELVES AT ARMS DISTANCE.
IVIST
FOIA REQUEST CASE NO.: NCD – 2022 - 07 04/18/2022
W (AACL) Date.: April 18th 2022
Michael A. Ayele
P.O.Box 20438
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
E-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request Case No.: NCD – 2022 – 07
Hello,
Thank you for your email. I am in receipt of it. I am writing this letter in response to your
correspondence from April 05th 2022 to express concerns about the manner in which the
National Council on Disability (NCD) processed my FOIA request, which had been assigned
Case No.: 2022 – 07. Specifically, I would like to take this opportunity to express concerns with
the NCD’s failure to disclose [1] how they became informed about the arrest of Teresa Sheehan
on August 07th 2008; [2] the discussions held between employees of your offices with legal
representatives of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological
Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law before filing the Amicus Curiae brief in the matter of City and County of San
Francisco v Teresa Sheehan; [3] the discussions held between employees of your offices with
legal representatives of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American
Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Judge David L.
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law since the adverse court determination in the matter of
City and County of San Francisco v Teresa Sheehan.
The core issues raised in this records request, which the website of the NCD doesn’t address are
the following. 1) How did the NCD become aware of Teresa Sheehan arrest on August 07th
2008? 2) What conversations (in the form of emails and postal correspondence) were had
between the NCD, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological
Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law following the arrest of Teresa Sheehan for the purpose of filing the Amicus
Curiae brief? 3) What conversations (in the form of emails and postal correspondence) were had
between the NCD, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological
Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law since the adverse court determination in the matter of City and County of San
Francisco v Teresa Sheehan?
As a representative of the media and a member of the general public, I am requesting that the
NCD disclose records that have not been made publicly available on their website. Specifically, I
am asking that the NCD perform a more thorough search for records within their possession
detailing [1] the names, the academic backgrounds, the professional responsibilities and annual
salaries of people who have reached out to them since the arrest of Teresa Sheehan on August
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 1
FOIA REQUEST CASE NO.: NCD – 2022 - 07 04/18/2022
07th 2008; [2] the discussions held between employees of your your offices with legal
representatives of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological
Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law before filing the Amicus Curiae brief in the matter of City and County of San
Francisco v Teresa Sheehan; [3] the discussions held between your offices with legal
representatives of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological
Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law since the adverse court determination in the matter of City and County of San
Francisco v Teresa Sheehan.
I sincerely hope you reconsider your response. Be well. Take care.
Respectfully submitted:
W (AACL)
Michael A. Ayele
Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist
Audio-Visual Media Analyst
Anti-Propaganda Journalist
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 2
National Council on Disability
An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress
to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.
April 5, 2022
W (AACL)
Michael A. Ayele
PO Box 20438
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Re: FOIA Request NCD-2022-07
Dear W:
This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal, dated
February 22, 2022, specifically you requested:
“What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are all records within your possession
detailing (1) the formal and informal ties that exist between your office, the NCD,v the
APA,vi the American Psychological Association, vii the NAMI,viii the Judge David L.
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,ix the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), the City of Baltimore, Maryland and the City & County of San
Francisco; (2) your communications about Teresa Sheehan as a woman, who was shot
multiple times by San Francisco Police officers on August 07th 2008; (3) your
communications about what truly occurred on the morning of August 07th 2008; x (4)
your communications about the benefits of having police officers wear body cameras for
the safety of the communities they are entrusted to protect; (5) your communications
about the benefits of having police officers wear body cameras for the purpose of
building community trust transparency and accountability in their daily activities; (6) your
communications about the benefits of having mental/public health treatment centers
install audio and video security cameras for the safety of patients/prisoners as well as
staff working in the facilities; (7) the training provided by your police/sheriff departments
on the reasonable use of force and in forcing warrantless entries into private
residences; (8) the training provided by your police/sheriff departments on the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA);xi (9) the training provided to your police/sheriff
department on the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution for what constitutes
unreasonable search and seizures; (10) the training provided to your police/sheriff
departments on the EEOC and the laws they enforce pursuant to Title VII of the 1964
and 1991 Civil Rights Act; (11) your communications about “homelessness and
unemployment correlating with illness and encounters with police;” (12) your
communications about the shift from “long-term care in state psychiatric hospital to
community based treatments;” (13) the communications between the NCD, the NAMI,
the APA, the American Psychological Association, the Judge David L. Bazelon Center
for Mental Health Law before and after the submission of their Amicus Curiae brief to
1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004
202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov
the Supreme Court on the issue of the ADA in the State of California and elsewhere;
(14) your communications about the decision of the Supreme Court to grant qualified
immunity to Sergeant Kimberly Reynold and Officer Kathrine Holder for their arrest of
Teresa Sheehan; xii (15) your communications about the decision of the U.S House of
Representative to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act for the purpose of
banning chokeholds and qualified immunity for law enforcement;xiii (16) your
communications about the criminal charges filed against San Francisco Police
Department (SFPD) officer Kenneth Cha in the death of Sean Moore; xiv (17) your
communications about Sean Moore, as a person who had been diagnosed with
schizophrenia at the time of his shooting death; (18) your communications about the
decision of SFPD officer Kenneth Cha to plead not guilty in the homicide charges, which
were filed against him; xv (19) your communications about Freddie Gray as a
Black/African American man who was born August 16th 1989 in Baltimore, Maryland;
xvi (20) your communications about the arrest of Freddie Gray on April 12th 2015 for
possession of a “switchblade;”xvii (21) your communications about the decision of the
Baltimore Police Department (BPD) to recognize that Freddie Gray “was not buckled in,
as required by department policy” during his transportation to jail;xviii (22) your
communications about the BPD as a law enforcement agency, which has previously
faced a litany of complaints for the manner in which they have transported arrestees;xix
(23) your communications about the death of Freddie Gray’s being ruled a homicide by
Maryland state medical examiner;xx (24) your communications about the decision of
Baltimore City State Attorney Marilyn Mosby to file criminal charges against employees
of the BPD involved in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray; (25) your communications
about the non-conviction of BPD employees involved in the arrest of Freddie Gray; xxi
(26) your communications about Freddie Gray as a Black/African American man who
had a personal right to carry an assisted-opener knife without fear of arrest; xxii (27)
your communications about the decision of the DOJ not to file federal criminal civil rights
charges in the death of Freddie Gray; xxiii (28) your communications about the findings
of the DOJ investigation into the practices of the BPD on August 10th 2016; xxiv (29)
your communications about the complaint filed by Marilyn Mosby with the FCC against
WBFF; (30) your communications about the response of the FCC to the complaint filed
by Marilyn Mosby; xxv (31) your communications about the decision of (former
Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton to criticize Fox News for their often-times misleading
reports on vital issues facing the U.S;xxvi (32) your communications about the motion
filed by Special Counsel John H. Durham with the U.S District Court for the District of
Columbia (a.k.a) E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse; xxvii (33) your communications
about the response filed by Michael A. Sussmann’s lawyers with the U.S District Court
for the District of Columbia; xxviii (34) your communications about Fox News frequent
unfair personal and professional attacks of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez;(35) your communications about Fox News as a media organization, which has
incited violence to be committed against Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez;
(36) your communications about Fox News as a media organization, which has
intentionally and maliciously denigrated the origins of Congresswoman Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez;xxix (37) your communications about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a
Latina Congresswoman xxx who has thus far not filed a complaint (against Fox News)
for defamation and libel with the FCC and/or the judicial branch of the U.S government;
2
(38) your communications about the dismissed defamation lawsuit filed by Sarah Palin
against the New York Times;xxxi (39) your communications about the New York Times
as a media organization, which recognized that it had made an “honest error” on the
story they had published about Sarah Palin linking her to the deadly 2011 shooting that
injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords;xxxii (40) your communications about the
Supreme Court finding in New York Times Company v Sullivan that “to sustain a claim
of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the
defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless when deciding to publish
the information without investigating whether it was accurate;”xxxiii (41) your
communications about the decision of the DOJ to indict Marilyn Mosby on federal
charges of perjury and making false mortgage applications; xxxiv (42) your
communications about the interview of Marilyn Mosby with MSNBC journalist Joy Reid;
xxxv (43) your communications about the decision of Marilyn Mosby to plead not guilty
on federal perjury charges brought on by the DOJ; xxxvi (44) your communications
about the cost of policing having tripled in the past 4 decades to reach $115 billion; (45)
your communications about the “defund the police” movement as one that seeks to take
money away from police and prisons for the purpose of prioritizing housing,
employment, community health and education; xxxvii (46) your communications about
the decision of several US cities to defund the police; xxxviii (47) your communications
about the significant pushback faced by proponents of the defund the police movement
from high-ranking members of the U.S Democratic and Republican parties; xxxix (48)
your communications about the television series entitled The Good Fight deciding to
show on the 5th episode of season 2, Rose Leslie and Cush Jumbo as private attorneys
in police night shift ride-along;xl (49) your communications about the benefits of having
attorneys (who specialize in police brutality cases) accompany law enforcement agents
during their patrol of the city/county that is within their jurisdiction; (50) your
communications about the provisions of the 6th Amendment of the U.S Constitution
permitting attorneys (who specialize in police brutality cases) to accompany law
enforcement agents during their patrol of the city/county that is within their jurisdiction;
(51) the academic backgrounds, the professional responsibilities and annual salaries of
John L. Burris, David W. Ogden, Daniel S. Volchok, Aaron M. Panner, Ira A. Burnim,
Alison N. Barkoff, Zy Richardson, Jonathan E. Algor, Andrew J. DeFilippis, Michael T.
Keilty, John H. Durham, Sean M. Berkowitz, Michael S. Bosworth, Natalie Hardwick
Rao, Catherine J. Yao, Erek L. Barron, Thomas J. Sobocinski, Darrell J. Waldon and A.
Scott Bolden.”
Your request for all records detailing the formal and informal ties that exist between
NCD and other various agencies is vague and unduly burdensome. It does not
reasonably describe the records you request. See 5 USC §5 552(a)(3)(A). If you refine
your request, NCD will try to fulfill this portion. In regard to requests for information
labeled 2-50, all official NCD correspondence is available on NCD’s website at
NCD.gov. There are no other agency records responsive to your request. In response to
request 51, NCD does not employ any of the requested professionals and therefore has
no responsive records.
For tracking purposes, your tracking number is NCD-2022-07.
3
If you need further assistance, you may contact Amy Nicholas, NCD’s FOIA Public
Liaison at 202-731-2313 or [email protected]. Please include your tracking number
with any correspondence. If needed, it is your right to seek dispute resolution services
from NCD’s Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS).
OGIS may be reached at:
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
[email protected]
202-741-5770
fax 202-741-5769
NCD’s appeal process allows you to appeal withheld information or the adequacy of
NCD’s search by writing within 90 days of your receipt of this letter to:
Anne Sommers McIntosh
Executive Director
National Council on Disability
1331 F St. NW.
Suite 850
Washington DC 20004
Your appeal must be in writing and should contain a brief statement of the reasons why
you believe the requested information should be released. Enclose a copy of your initial
request, request number and a copy of this letter. Both the appeal letter and envelope
should be prominently marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”
After processing, actual fees must be equal to or exceed $25 for the Council to require
payment of fees. See 5 CFR §10,00010k. The fulfillment of your request did not exceed
$25, therefor there is no billable fee for the processing of this request.
Respectfully,
Joan Durocher
Chief FOIA Officer
4
National Council on Disability
An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress
to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.
March 18, 2022
W (AACL)
Michael A. Ayele
PO Box 20438
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Re: FOIA Request NCD-2022-08
Dear W:
This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, dated
March 6, 2022, in which you requested:
”Thank you for your email. I am in receipt of it. I am writing this letter in response to your
February 23rd 2022 correspondence. Please be advised that I am contacting you to
express several concerns about the manner in which you have processed my records
request. Specifically, I have concerns with your failure to (1) identify the police/sheriff
departments the Missouri Department of Mental Health (DMH) has working
relationships with; (2) the training provided by the DMH to police/sheriff departments on
the subject of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); (3) the training provided to
employees of the DMH on the subject of the ADA.
As a former employee of the DMH Fulton State Hospital (FSH), I have several
additional concerns about your response because you had previously disclosed to me
the policies adopted by the DMH on the use of audio and video cameras inside the
wards, where patients/prisoners are held. In the records request I had submitted on
February 22nd 2022, I had expressed concerns about the arrest of Teresa Sheehan
because of conflicting testimonies as to what truly occurred before the incident, which
led to her being shot by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) in August 2008.
Conflicting testimonies had also been submitted to the judicial branch of the California
government on what the appropriate police response should have been. Given these
conflicting testimonies, I had requested that you disclose your communications about
the benefits of having audio and video cameras installed in public/mental health
treatment centers. In your response from February 23rd 2022, you have failed to
address this portion of my request. As a former employee of the FSH, I ask that you
provide an adequate response to my request by promptly disclosing (1) your
communications about the benefits of having audio and video cameras installed in
public/mental health treatment centers; (2) the Sunshine request submitted to the DMH
asking for specific recorded audio and video moments between staff amongst
themselves; (3) the Sunshine request submitted to the DMH asking for specific recorded
1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004
202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov
audio and video moments between staff and patients; (4) the Sunshine request
submitted to the DMH asking for specific recorded audio and video moments between
patients amongst themselves.
The core issues presented in this records request are the following. 1) Has the DMH
concluded a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and/or a memorandum of
agreement (MOA) with police/sheriff departments throughout the State of Missouri? If
yes, will you promptly disclose those records that are within your possession? 2) Does
the DMH provide training to police/sheriff departments in the State of Missouri on the
subject of the ADA? If yes, will you promptly disclose the training provided by
employees of the DMH on the subject of the ADA as well as the training they are
provided themselves? 3) Have records requests been submitted to the DMH asking for
your offices to disclose specific recorded audio and video moments depicting
interactions between (i) staff of the DMH amongst themselves; (ii) staff and patients of
the DMH; (iii) patients of the DMH amongst themselves? If yes, will you promptly
disclose those records requests submitted to the DMH alongside the response provided
by the DMH to such requests?
I would again like to reiterate that I am requesting for prompt disclosure records that
exist within your possession detailing (1) the formal/informal ties that exist between the
DMH and police/sheriff departments in the State of Missouri; (2) the MOU/MOA
concluded between the DMH and police/sheriff departments in the State of Missouri; (3)
the training provided by the DMH to police/sheriff departments on the subject of the
ADA; (4) the training provided to employees of the DMH on the subject of the ADA; (5)
the formal/informal opinions held by the DMH on the “defund the police” movement; (6)
your communications about the benefits of having audio and video cameras installed in
public/mental health treatment centers taking into consideration what occurred to
Teresa Sheehan in August 2008; (7) the Sunshine request submitted to the DMH asking
for specific recorded audio and video moments depicting interactions between (i) staff of
the DMH amongst themselves; (ii) staff and patients of the DMH; (iii) patients of the
DMH amongst themselves; (8) the response provided by the DMH to Sunshine requests
of specific recorded audio and video interactions such as those described in Item No.7.”
It appears that NCD is not the intended party for this FOIA appeal. NCD did not
correspond with you on February 22 and NCD has never been in possession of any of
the records you request.
For tracking purposes, your tracking number is NCD-2022-08.
If you need further assistance, you may contact Amy Nicholas, NCD’s FOIA Public
Liaison at 202-731-2313 or [email protected]. Please include your tracking number
with any correspondence. If needed, it is your right to seek dispute resolution services
from NCD’s Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS).
OGIS may be reached at:
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)
2
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
[email protected]
202-741-5770
fax 202-741-5769
NCD’s appeal process allows you to appeal withheld information or the adequacy of
NCD’s search by writing within 90 days of your receipt of this letter to:
Anne Sommers McIntosh
Executive Director
National Council on Disability
1331 F St. NW.
Suite 850
Washington DC 20004
Your appeal must be in writing and should contain a brief statement of the reasons why
you believe the requested information should be released. Enclose a copy of your initial
request, request number and a copy of this letter. Both the appeal letter and envelope
should be prominently marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”
After processing, actual fees must be equal to or exceed $25 for the Council to require
payment of fees. See 5 CFR §10,00010k. The fulfillment of your request did not exceed
$25, therefore there is no billable fee for the processing of this request.
Respectfully,
Joan Durocher
Chief FOIA Officer
3
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
W (AACL) Date.: February 22nd 2022
Michael A. Ayele
P.O.Box 20438
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
E-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
Request for Records
Hello,
This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W. You may call me W. I am
writing this letter to file a request for records with your offices.i The bases for this request for
records are (1) the brief of Amicus Curiae submitted to the Supreme Court by the American
Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association, the National Council
on Disability (NCD), the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and Judge David L.
Bazelon Center for Mental Health in the case of City and County of San Francisco v Teresa
Sheehan;ii (2) the criminal charges filed against San Francisco police officer Kenneth Cha in the
death of Sean Moore and; iii (3) the recent interview of Baltimore City State Attorney Marilyn
Mosby on MSNBC with Joy Reid.iv
I) Records Requested
What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are all records within your possession detailing (1)
the formal and informal ties that exist between your office, the NCD,v the APA,vi the American
Psychological Association, vii the NAMI,viii the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental
Health Law,ix the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the City of Baltimore, Maryland and
the City & County of San Francisco; (2) your communications about Teresa Sheehan as a
woman, who was shot multiple times by San Francisco Police officers on August 07th 2008; (3)
your communications about what truly occurred on the morning of August 07th 2008; x (4) your
communications about the benefits of having police officers wear body cameras for the safety of
the communities they are entrusted to protect; (5) your communications about the benefits of
having police officers wear body cameras for the purpose of building community trust
transparency and accountability in their daily activities; (6) your communications about the
benefits of having mental/public health treatment centers install audio and video security
cameras for the safety of patients/prisoners as well as staff working in the facilities; (7) the
training provided by your police/sheriff departments on the reasonable use of force and in
forcing warrantless entries into private residences; (8) the training provided by your
police/sheriff departments on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA);xi (9) the training
provided to your police/sheriff department on the 4th Amendment of the U.S Constitution for
what constitutes unreasonable search and seizures; (10) the training provided to your
police/sheriff departments on the EEOC and the laws they enforce pursuant to Title VII of the
1964 and 1991 Civil Rights Act; (11) your communications about “homelessness and
unemployment correlating with illness and encounters with police;” (12) your communications
about the shift from “long-term care in state psychiatric hospital to community based
treatments;” (13) the communications between the NCD, the NAMI, the APA, the American
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 1
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
Psychological Association, the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law before
and after the submission of their Amicus Curiae brief to the Supreme Court on the issue of the
ADA in the State of California and elsewhere; (14) your communications about the decision of
the Supreme Court to grant qualified immunity to Sergeant Kimberly Reynold and Officer
Kathrine Holder for their arrest of Teresa Sheehan; xii (15) your communications about the
decision of the U.S House of Representative to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act for
the purpose of banning chokeholds and qualified immunity for law enforcement;xiii (16) your
communications about the criminal charges filed against San Francisco Police Department
(SFPD) officer Kenneth Cha in the death of Sean Moore; xiv (17) your communications about
Sean Moore, as a person who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia at the time of his shooting
death; (18) your communications about the decision of SFPD officer Kenneth Cha to plead not
guilty in the homicide charges, which were filed against him; xv (19) your communications about
Freddie Gray as a Black/African American man who was born August 16th 1989 in Baltimore,
Maryland; xvi (20) your communications about the arrest of Freddie Gray on April 12th 2015 for
possession of a “switchblade;”xvii (21) your communications about the decision of the Baltimore
Police Department (BPD) to recognize that Freddie Gray “was not buckled in, as required by
department policy” during his transportation to jail;xviii (22) your communications about the
BPD as a law enforcement agency, which has previously faced a litany of complaints for the
manner in which they have transported arrestees;xix (23) your communications about the death of
Freddie Gray’s being ruled a homicide by Maryland state medical examiner;xx (24) your
communications about the decision of Baltimore City State Attorney Marilyn Mosby to file
criminal charges against employees of the BPD involved in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray;
(25) your communications about the non-conviction of BPD employees involved in the arrest of
Freddie Gray; xxi (26) your communications about Freddie Gray as a Black/African American
man who had a personal right to carry an assisted-opener knife without fear of arrest; xxii (27)
your communications about the decision of the DOJ not to file federal criminal civil rights
charges in the death of Freddie Gray; xxiii (28) your communications about the findings of the
DOJ investigation into the practices of the BPD on August 10th 2016; xxiv (29) your
communications about the complaint filed by Marilyn Mosby with the FCC against WBFF; (30)
your communications about the response of the FCC to the complaint filed by Marilyn Mosby;
xxv (31) your communications about the decision of (former Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton to
criticize Fox News for their often-times misleading reports on vital issues facing the U.S;xxvi (32)
your communications about the motion filed by Special Counsel John H. Durham with the U.S
District Court for the District of Columbia (a.k.a) E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse; xxvii (33)
your communications about the response filed by Michael A. Sussmann’s lawyers with the U.S
District Court for the District of Columbia; xxviii (34) your communications about Fox News
frequent unfair personal and professional attacks of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez;(35) your communications about Fox News as a media organization, which has incited
violence to be committed against Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; (36) your
communications about Fox News as a media organization, which has intentionally and
maliciously denigrated the origins of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez;xxix (37) your
communications about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a Latina Congresswoman xxx who has thus
far not filed a complaint (against Fox News) for defamation and libel with the FCC and/or the
judicial branch of the U.S government; (38) your communications about the dismissed
defamation lawsuit filed by Sarah Palin against the New York Times;xxxi (39) your
communications about the New York Times as a media organization, which recognized that it
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 2
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
had made an “honest error” on the story they had published about Sarah Palin linking her to the
deadly 2011 shooting that injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords;xxxii (40) your
communications about the Supreme Court finding in New York Times Company v Sullivan that
“to sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show
that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless when deciding to publish the
information without investigating whether it was accurate;”xxxiii (41) your communications
about the decision of the DOJ to indict Marilyn Mosby on federal charges of perjury and making
false mortgage applications; xxxiv (42) your communications about the interview of Marilyn
Mosby with MSNBC journalist Joy Reid; xxxv (43) your communications about the decision of
Marilyn Mosby to plead not guilty on federal perjury charges brought on by the DOJ; xxxvi (44)
your communications about the cost of policing having tripled in the past 4 decades to reach
$115 billion; (45) your communications about the “defund the police” movement as one that
seeks to take money away from police and prisons for the purpose of prioritizing housing,
employment, community health and education; xxxvii (46) your communications about the
decision of several US cities to defund the police; xxxviii (47) your communications about the
significant pushback faced by proponents of the defund the police movement from high-ranking
members of the U.S Democratic and Republican parties; xxxix (48) your communications about
the television series entitled The Good Fight deciding to show on the 5th episode of season 2,
Rose Leslie and Cush Jumbo as private attorneys in police night shift ride-along;xl (49) your
communications about the benefits of having attorneys (who specialize in police brutality cases)
accompany law enforcement agents during their patrol of the city/county that is within their
jurisdiction; (50) your communications about the provisions of the 6th Amendment of the U.S
Constitution permitting attorneys (who specialize in police brutality cases) to accompany law
enforcement agents during their patrol of the city/county that is within their jurisdiction; (51) the
academic backgrounds, the professional responsibilities and annual salaries of John L. Burris,
David W. Ogden, Daniel S. Volchok, Aaron M. Panner, Ira A. Burnim, Alison N. Barkoff, Zy
Richardson, Jonathan E. Algor, Andrew J. DeFilippis, Michael T. Keilty, John H. Durham, Sean
M. Berkowitz, Michael S. Bosworth, Natalie Hardwick Rao, Catherine J. Yao, Erek L. Barron,
Thomas J. Sobocinski, Darrell J. Waldon and A. Scott Bolden.
II) Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing
The requested records have demonstrated that (1) the New York Times is a news media
organization, which previously won a landmark lawsuit for placing ads that were critical of the
police brutality faced by Martin Luther King Jr. in Montgomery, Alabama; (2) the lives and
well-being of Teresa Sheehan, Freddie Gray and Sean Moore were put at significant risk because
of their suspicious arrests without probable cause; (3) the once promising career prospects of
Marilyn Mosby have come to a standstill because of her entanglement in the case of Freddie
Gray; (4) Marilyn and Nick Mosby were in the not so distant past considered by Marylanders as
a power couple comparable to Hillary and Bill Clinton; xli (5) Fox News is a media outlet, which
has incited violence to be committed against Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez because
of her racial background, her gender and her political positions; (6) Congresswoman Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez has not yet filed a complaint with the FCC and/or the judicial branch of the U.S
government for libel and defamation against Fox News. In my opinion, the facts I have described
in my request for a fee waiver and expedited processing are not the sort to bolster public
confidence in the efforts of the U.S government to deal with the systemic chauvinism,
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 3
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
discrimination, misogyny, racism and sexism plaguing American society.
The core issues presented in this records request are the following. 1) Does the ADA apply
during the arrests/detentions of people who do not suffer from a physical and/or a mental
impairment? Should the ADA apply during the arrests/detentions of people who do not suffer
from a physical and/or a mental impairment for the purpose of preventing police use of excessive
force, which has the potential to cause physical and emotional trauma? Has the Amicus Curiae
brief filed by the NCD, the NAMI, the APA, the American Psychological Association and the
Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law inspired the San Francisco District
Attorney to file criminal charges with the courts in circumstances where police use excessive
force against people with disabilities? What conversations were had between your offices on the
subject of the ADA? Would it be consistent with the 6th Amendment of the U.S Constitution to
have attorneys (specializing in police brutality cases) accompany police/sheriff departments
employees during the arrest and transportation of people to jails/prisons? 2) Is Fox News being
consistent with the provisions of the 1st Amendment of the U.S Constitution when inciting
violence against Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez because of her racial background,
her gender and her political opinions? 3) Has the narrative of Fox News contributed to the
January 06th 2021 insurrection and ensuing violence? If yes, what responsibilities should befall
this news organization? How should they be held accountable? 4) Is the “defund the police”
movement unpopular among the public because there’s as much faith in police officers as there
is for social workers, nurses, psychologists, psychiatrists, medical doctors and other personnel
working in city/county/state governments? Is the “defund the police” movement unpopular
because people don’t trust their police/sheriff departments in similar ways they have little faith in
their human rights agency, their public/mental health treatment centers, the DOJ, the EEOC, the
Department of Education (DoED), and the Department of Housing & Urban Development
(HUD)?
On the bases of the issues that have been raised, I believe this records request should be
expedited and all fees waived. In my judgment, the records I have requested to be promptly
disclosed (1) puts into question the government’s integrity because of decisions that have
adversely impacted public confidence about the manner in which women and racial minorities
are treated in the United States of America (U.S.A); (2) identifies operations and activities of the
federal government in concert with U.S local and state government; (3) are meaningfully
informative about government operations or activities in order to be ‘likely to contribute’ to and
increase public understanding of those operations or activities. I hereby declare under penalty of
perjury that all the statements I have made are to the best of my knowledge true and accurate.
Have a good day. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.
Respectfully submitted:
W (AACL)
Michael A. Ayele
Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist
Audio-Visual Media Analyst
Anti-Propaganda Journalist
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 4
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
Work Cited
i Please be advised that I have previously disseminated a vast number of documents obtained
through records request via Archive.org, Scribd.com, Medium.com and YouTube.com. These
documents have been made available to the public at no financial expense to them. As a member
of the media, I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that the records you disclose to
me could be made available to the general public through the means I have mentioned above or
other ones. On December 10th 2021, I have launched a website on Wordpress.com for the
purpose of making the records previously disclosed to me by the U.S government further
accessible to members of the general public interested in the activities of their elected and non-
elected representatives. You can find out more about the recent publications of the Association
for the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL) here.: https://michaelayeleaacl.wordpress.com/
ii Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and
County of San Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan, NCD.:
https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015
iii A San Francisco police officer has been charged with voluntary manslaughter over a fatal
shooting in 2017, marking a rare homicide charge for an on-duty law enforcement officer in the
California city. Kenneth Cha was charged with voluntary manslaughter and assault with a semi-
automatic firearm, along with enhancements accusing him of inflicting great bodily injury, in the
death of Sean Moore, an unarmed man he shot on 6 January 2017. Moore died from his injuries
last year. “We rely on officers to follow their training and to de-escalate situations; instead, in
just eight minutes, Officer Cha elevated a non-violent encounter to one that took Sean Moore’s
life,” said the city’s district attorney, Chesa Boudin, in a statement announcing the charges.
“Sean Moore was unarmed and at his own home when Officer Cha shot him twice.” San
Francisco police officer faces rare homicide charge over 2017 shooting, The Guardian.:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/02/san-francisco-police-kenneth-cha-charged-
sean-moore
iv Baltimore City State’s Attorney Denies Charges She Calls Retaliation for Indicting Law
Enforcement, MSNBC.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1gPs5xRGR4
v In the brief filed with the Supreme Court, the National Council on Disability (NCD) describe
themselves as an “independent federal agency charged with advising the President, Congress,
and other federal agencies on policies and practices that affect people with disabilities. Council
members are appointed by the President and Congress and are representative of national
organizations concerned with individuals with disabilities, providers and administrators of
services to individuals with disabilities, business concerns, labor organizations, and individuals
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 5
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
with disabilities themselves. In furtherance of its duties, the Council systematically gathers and
provides decision makers with information relevant to the implementation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.” Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in Support of
Respondent – City and County of San Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan, NCD.:
https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015
vi In the brief filed with the Supreme Court of the United States (U.S) on February 17th 2015, the
American Psychiatric Association (APA) describe themselves as the “Nation’s leading
organization of physicians who specialize in psychiatry” with more than 36,000 members. Brief
Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and
County of San Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan, NCD.:
https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015
vii In the brief filed with the Supreme Court on February 2015, the American Psychological
Association (APA) describe themselves as “the leading association of psychologists in the
United States.” “A non-profit scientific and professional organization, it has approximately
155,000 members and affiliates. Among its major purposes are to increase and disseminate
knowledge regarding human behavior, and to foster the application of psychological learning to
important human concerns.” Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in
Support of Respondent – City and County of San Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan,
NCD.: https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015
viii In the brief filed with the Supreme Court on February 2015, the National Alliance on Mental
Illness (NAMI) describe themselves as the “nation’s largest grassroots mental health
organization advocating on behalf of individuals and families affected by mental illness. NAMI
has worked for many years with federal, state, and local law enforcement and mental health
agencies on crisis intervention team (CIT) programs and strategies to de-escalate mental health
crises and reduce adverse outcomes such as deaths and serious injuries.” Brief Amicus Curiae
of the National Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and County of San
Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan, NCD.:
https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015
ix In the brief filed on February 2015, the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
describe themselves as a “national public interest organization founded in 1972 to advance the
rights of individuals with mental disabilities. The Center advocates for laws and policies that
provide people with mental illness or intellectual disability the opportunities and resources they
need to participate fully in their communities. Its litigation and policy advocacy is based on the
Americans with Disabilities Act’s guarantees of non-discrimination and reasonable
accommodation. The Center has long worked for the diversion of people with mental illness from
the criminal justice system and for safer police practices.” Brief Amicus Curiae of the National
Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and County of San Francisco, California,
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 6
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
et al v Terersa Sheehan, NCD.: https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015
x On August 7, 2008, Plaintiff TERESA SHEEHAN, a 56 year old woman with no criminal
record, resided at Conard co-op, located at 1941 15th Street, in San Francisco, in a room of
which she was the sole lessee. No one else resided in Plaintiff’s room at Conard co-op. Plaintiff
SHEEHAN had lived at Conard co-op for several years. Conard co-op is an independent-living,
cooperative program in San Francisco for people suffering from chronic mental illness. Plaintiff
SHEEHAN had no history of violence. Residents of Conard co-op become residents by referral
through Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
CITY provides funding for Conard co-op. Plaintiff SHEEHAN has suffered from chronic schizo-
affective disorder since she was a young woman. Plaintiff SHEEHAN takes medication to control
the psychiatric disorder. A social worker supervises five counselors who work at Conard co-op,
assisting residents in their daily living, treatment, and medication. At the time of the subject-
incident, Heath Hodge was the social worker for Conard co-op, and was on-call to provide
assistance as requested. (…) On August 7, 2008, Mr. Hodge came to Conard co-op of his own
accord, without being called, to check on Plaintiff. Plaintiff had been absent from house
meetings and meetings with staff for two weeks, and was reportedly coming and going at odd
hours. During this time, when Plaintiff was home, she kept to herself in her room. The previous
day, August 6, 2008, Plaintiff met with a San Francisco Police Department officer, off-site from
Conard co-op, regarding Plaintiff’s concerns that some of her property at Conard co-op had
been stolen. That officer spent significant time with Plaintiff. Plaintiff gave her a key to the
residence, and the officer went alone to Conard co-op to investigate Plaintiff’s missing property.
That officer later testified in the criminal trial pertaining to the subject-incident that Plaintiff did
not appear to be psychotic, a danger to herself or others, or unable to care for herself. That
officer did not prepare a police report of the contact or of her investigation. (…) Mr. Hodge
decided to make contact with Plaintiff on the day of the subject-incident, and knocked on the
door to her room. Plaintiff’s door was locked. When Plaintiff did not respond to Mr. Hodge’s
knocks, Mr. Hodge used a pass-key provided by the property manager, who was present, to
unlock Plaintiff’s door from the outside. Mr. Hodge saw Plaintiff lying on her bed, next to the
door, with a book laying on her chest. Plaintiff reacted to Mr. Hodge’s unwanted presence by
yelling at him to get out of her room. According only to Mr. Hodge, Plaintiff allegedly jumped
out of bed, told Mr. Hodge that he did not have a warrant authorizing his entry, and told Mr.
Hodge that if he did not leave the room that she had a knife and would kill him. Plaintiff and Mr.
Hodge did not have a good working relationship, and Mr. Hodge was aware that Plaintiff
wanted little interaction with him. Although other witnesses were present, Mr. Hodge is the only
person who heard Plaintiff make any type of alleged threat. Other witnesses present did not hear
Plaintiff make any threat or claim to have a knife, and Plaintiff made no threat to anyone. (…)
Plaintiff brandished no weapon at Mr. Hodge, and Mr. Hodge never saw any weapons in
Plaintiff’s room. However, Mr. Hodge left Plaintiff’s room and slammed her door closed. Mr.
Hodge decided to “5150” Plaintiff, so he called the police to request their help in detaining
Plaintiff pursuant to a Welfare and Institutions section 5150 hold, in which a person may be
detained against their will if certain criteria are met. Pursuant to section 5150, a peace officer
or a designated member of a facility designated by the County may, upon probable cause, take or
cause to be taken a person who, as a result of a mental disorder, is a danger to others, oneself,
or gravely disabled, to an approved facility for 72-hour treatmeWnt(aAnAdCLe)v–aMluIaCtHioAnE.LAAl.thAoYuEgLEh M7r.
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
Hodge reportedly possessed a card that authorized him to initiate a section 5150 hold, Plaintiff
alleges that her insistence on Mr. Hodge leaving her room, in which she had a cognizable
Fourth Amendment privacy interest, even if Plaintiff made a conditional threat to Mr. Hodge,
which Plaintiff disputes, was insufficient basis to detain Plaintiff pursuant to section 5150. (…)
Defendant Officer HOLDER responded to Mr. Hodge’s call to police. When she arrived at
Conard co-op, she spoke with Mr. Hodge outside of the building. Unconvinced that Mr. Hodge
had the authority to initiate an involuntary detention of Plaintiff pursuant to section 5150,
Defendant Officer HOLDER called a superior officer to the scene. Defendant Officer
REYNOLDS, a sergeant, responded to the scene, spoke with Mr. Hodge, observed his pink “5150
card” and a 5150 form Mr. Hodge had filled out. Although Defendant Officer REYNOLDS could
not read much of Mr. Hodge’s illegible, handwritten 5150 form, she agreed to detain Plaintiff to
evaluate her further for section 5150 detention based upon their discussion, which indicated that
Plaintiff had been off her medication and purportedly threatened to stab or kill Mr. Hodge. Even
assuming Mr. Hodge related the alleged conditional threat made by Plaintiff, Plaintiff alleges
there was insufficient probable cause to believe that Plaintiff posed a sufficient danger to herself,
others, or was gravely disabled, to detain her pursuant to section 5150, and that only a plainly
incompetent police officer could have believed otherwise. (…) Mr. Hodge accompanied both
Defendant Officers into Conard co-op and gave Defendant Officer REYNOLDS the master key to
Conard co-op and the door to Plaintiff’s residence. Once inside Conard co-op, Mr. Hodge
identified the door to Plaintiff’s unit and both Defendant Officers HOLDER and REYNOLDS
approached the door to Plaintiff’s unit. Without any further information and without attempting
to obtain a court-order or search warrant, Defendant Officer REYNOLDS told Defendant
Officer HOLDER that the plan was for them to enter Plaintiff’s private residence. Defendant
Officer REYNOLDS put the key into the lock on Plaintiff’s door and yelled “We are the police;
we want to help you!” Plaintiff did not respond. Defendant Officer REYNOLDS then opened
Plaintiff’s door and Plaintiff appeared to be lying on her bed. Plaintiff began to get up off her
bed and told the officers that they did not have a search warrant and could not enter her room.
Plaintiff also indicated that she had already called police. (…) When the defendant officers did
not leave Plaintiff’s room, Plaintiff allegedly got off her bed, picked up a knife, and threatened
the officers. Defendant Officers backed out of Plaintiff’s residence, and Plaintiff slammed the
door closed on them. Plaintiff did not open the door to her room after that. (…) Defendant
Officer HOLDER then called for backup on her police radio while Defendant Officer
REYNOLDS continued to talk to Plaintiff through the closed door. Both Defendant Officers drew
their firearms. Defendant Officer HOLDER directed radio dispatch to the correct address, and
Defendant Officer REYNOLDS heard, over dispatch radio, that more officers were en-route to
Plaintiff’s residence, along with a less-lethal unit. (…) Defendant Officer REYNOLDS requested
that Officer HOLDER remove her pepper-spray because Officer REYNOLDS intended to gain
access to Plaintiff’s room. Defendant Officer REYNOLDS tried to speak with Plaintiff and
attempted to force Plaintiff’s door open. Defendant Officer HOLDER, who had a bit more
physical heft than Officer REYNOLDS, volunteered to take over the forced-entry of Plaintiff’s
door. Defendant Officer REYNOLDS asked Mr. Hodge to open the door to Conard co-op and let
backup officers into the residence. Mr. Hodge left the immediate scene to open the front door for
backup officers to enter the residence. (…) Defendant Officer HOLDER ensured that Plaintiff’s
door was unlocked, but could not open Plaintiff’s door, which remained closed. Defendant
Officer HOLDER hit the door with her shoulder several times while holding the doorknob.
Eventually, Defendant Officer HOLDER forced the door open aWnd(AoAbCsLe)rv–eMdIPCHlaAiEnLtiAff. sAeYvEeLrEal fe8et
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
from the door entry, with her back to the officer. Plaintiff allegedly held a knife in one of her
hands, made a statement that she was going to “kill you,” and began walking toward Defendant
Officers, who were one step into Plaintiff’s room. (…) Defendant Officer REYNOLDS
discharged pepper-spray toward Plaintiff, who wore glasses, while Defendant Officer HOLDER
backed out of Plaintiff’s room. Plaintiff allegedly walked toward Defendant Officers with a knife
raised in her hand, and Defendant Officer HOLDER discharged her firearm at Plaintiff two to
three times. Each shot struck Plaintiff. Defendant Officer REYNOLDS also shot Plaintiff two
times, striking Plaintiff. Plaintiff fell forward and fell to the ground. All five shots struck
Plaintiff’s body. (…) After Plaintiff fell to the ground, having been shot five times, Defendant
Officer REYNOLDS discharged one final gunshot directly into the left temple of Plaintiff’s
forehead. The gunshot exited through Plaintiff’s left cheek, and caused numerous facial fractures
and injuries. Plaintiff posed no reasonable threat to anyone when Defendant Officer REYNOLDS
fired this last gunshot directly into Plaintiff’s head. Miraculously, Plaintiff survived the shooting
and attempted execution. (…) In total, Plaintiff suffered 14 gunshot wounds inflicted by
Defendant Officers REYNOLDS and HOLDER, with the final gunshot wounds inflicted against
Plaintiff’s forehead and face, after Plaintiff was on the ground and posed no threat. (…) Plaintiff
fought the criminal charges filed against her, including one count of making criminal threats,
two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, and two counts of assault on a peace officer,
through a jury trial that concluded on December 17, 2008. Plaintiff was acquitted of making
criminal threats. A mistrial was declared on the remaining counts when jurors could not reach a
unanimous verdict. Plaintiff is informed and believes that of the 12-person jury, 11 jurors were
in favor of Plaintiff’s acquittal on the charges of assault with a deadly weapon and assault on a
peace officer. (…) Plaintiffs further allege that the shooting of Plaintiff was the proximate result
of Defendant CITY’s failure to reasonably train their police officers in the proper and
reasonable use of force and in forcing warrantless entries into residences without sufficient
emergency or exigent circumstances. Plaintiffs further allege that these substantial failures
reflect Defendant CITY’s policies implicitly ratifying and/or authorizing the use of excessive
force by its police officers and the failure to reasonably train police officers employed by
Defendant CITY in making warrantless entries into private residences. (…) On June 6, 2006,
more than two years before the subject-incident, two San Francisco Police Department officers
shot and killed an unarmed man, Asa Sullivan, after a third San Francisco Police officer forced
a warrantless entry, without exigency of emergency circumstances, into 2 Garces Drive. Plaintiff
alleges that although Defendant CITY was on notice of its deficiencies in training officers
regarding warrantless entries into residences, Defendant CITY failed to take remedial measures
in training its officers in warrantless entry into residences, proximately causing the near-fatal
shooting of Plaintiff TERESA SHEEHAN. In addition, as in the instant shooting of Plaintiff,
officers at 2 Garces Drive on June 6, 2006 were aware that a less-lethal weapons unit was en
route to the residence. Instead of waiting for the less-lethal unit, officers at 2 Garces Drive
ignored advice from other officers to stand down, and insisted on escalating a standoff with an
unarmed person into a lethal force shooting. Teresa Sheehan Complaint, Scribd.:
https://www.scribd.com/document/241408998/Teresa-Sheehan-Complaint
The fact that officers responding to Mr. Hodge’s call may have lacked adequate training is
consistent with studies showing that police officers frequently feel inadequately trained to
respond to such situations. This is so even when as is true in San Francisco, providing assistance
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 9
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
in detaining and transporting individuals with mental illness who are dangerous to self or other
or gravely disabled (the standard for civil commitment in California and most States) is a police
function. As a result, police officers report that such calls are challenging and difficult to
manage. The lack of adequate mental health training for police officers – just one critical tool
for responding to individuals in crisis – is particularly problematic because traditional police
tactics, such as verbal commands, displays of authority, and threats of physical force, can
escalate already sensitive encounters with individuals with mental illness. That escalation, in
turn, can cause individuals, including those with mental illness, to present a more threatening
demeanor, which may elicit yet more forceful police responses. To assist in analyzing and
remedying the problems caused by the application of traditional criminal justice system
approaches – and in recognition of the role of law enforcement in identifying individuals with
mental illness and diverting them to treatment – mental health professionals and policy
makers have developed a framework known as the Sequential Intercept Model. A key premise of
the Sequential Intercept Model is that there are untapped improvements in public health and
safety – and potential resource savings – that can result from cooperation between law
enforcement and mental health professionals. The Sequential Intercept Model focuses on
improving outcomes in part through cooperation between law enforcement and mental health
professionals. It identifies five points of “intercept” where the collaboration between law
enforcement and mental health professionals can be used to identify and divert to treatment
individuals with serious mental illnesses. These points of potential intervention range from initial
encounters with police, through courts and jails, to prisons and rehabilitative facilities,
including points of intervention available to community supervising entities such as probation
and parole. Public entities in several States have used the Sequential Intercept Model to develop
interventions for individuals with mental illnesses at various stages of the criminal justice
process, but a more systematic approach would foster more comprehensive interventions. These
interventions include strategies for screening and assessment to enhance identification of
behavioral health conditions, development of closer coordination with community service
providers, and development of policies, protocols, and memoranda of agreement to enhance the
capacity to meet the needs of individuals with mental illness and direct them toward treatment
when appropriate and safe. Because entrance into the criminal justice system starts with a police
encounter, the initial point of contact between police and an individual with mental illness is the
best opportunity to identify serious mental illnesses and to ensure that an individual with such a
disability can be diverted into treatment. Intervention at the earliest stage is also most critical in
part because it is most cost effective. When a social worker seeks assistance from law
enforcement to bring an individual with mental illness into custody for temporary civil
commitment, there is often no imminent threat to public safety. Such a call for assistance is
equivalent to a call for medical help, seeking emergency treatment for what is a psychiatric
problem. When officers with inadequate training, including because of an absence of policies
and procedures to guide them, respond to such a call, an opportunity for “intercept” is lost.
When such an encounter leads to incarceration, what began as a call for more intensive
treatment ends with the individual being denied effective treatment interventions and instead
being punished. Furthermore, responding to such a situation using traditional police tactics may
put all parties, including the police officers, in danger. In particular, hundreds of individuals
with mental illness are shot and killed by police officers every year. In this case, police were
dispatched to transport Ms. Sheehan safely to a medical facility where she could receive
treatment. This point of contact between the police and Ms. SheWeh(aAnAtChLe)r–efMoIrCeHrAeEpLreAs.eAnYtEeLdEnot10
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
merely a lost point of intercept but rather a step backward. Ms. Sheehan did not need an
intercept; she had committed no crime. She needed emergency medical care. (…) When the
police arrived at Ms. Sheehan’s group home, she was in her own room; she did not engage in
any unlawful behavior; until approached by her social worker, she had not threatened anyone;
and there was no indication that she was suicidal. This fact pattern – no crime, no immediate
threat – represents a significant percentage of all police encounters with individuals with mental
illness. Police injuries during encounters with such individuals may be no more frequent than
injuries during encounters with others, and, when they do occur, rarely require medical
attention. (…) In this case, police were called for the purpose of bringing respondent in for
treatment; in other circumstances, police officers may face questions about whether an
individual who has been arrested for a non-violent crime – vagrancy, disturbing the peace,
public intoxication – may be exhibiting symptoms of severe mental illnesses such that treatment,
rather than criminal justice system intervention, is called for. Training and development of
linkages to appropriate community mental health resources can assist officers in such situations.
For example, in Baltimore, Maryland, Baltimore Crisis Response, Inc. provides free mental
health crisis beds for individuals who do not meet the criteria for involuntary commitment but
who nevertheless need treatment and are unable to receive it elsewhere. In San Antonio, Texas,
community resources were developed for a specialized drop-off center that police can use to give
individuals with mental health or substance abuse needs access to treatment providers in an
efficient manner. Police officers who are aware of such programs can avoid jailing individuals
who are homeless for minor violations caused by symptoms of mental illness. In 2011, the
Department of Justice reached a settlement agreement with the State of Delaware under the ADA
providing, among other things, MCTs and crisis walk-in centers, which are 24-hour
“community-based psychiatric and counseling services to people experiencing a mental health
crisis,” with specific accommodations made for police referrals or drop-offs. The programs
described above have not provided any panacea to the deep problems caused by insufficient
mental health services and the responsibilities borne by police officers in responding to
mental health crises. All such programs, to be most effective, require continuing training, review
for best practices, funding, and oversight. And no one program will solve the problem of mental
illness in the criminal justice system or work for all police departments. (…) It is especially clear
in the context of this case that petitioners were providing a “benefit” to respondent when they
sought to take her into custody for involuntary hospitalization. The statute under which
petitioners sought to take respondent into custody authorizes temporary civil commitment when
“any person, as a result of a mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or
gravely disabled.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150(a). Among the reasons for civil commitment
under this statute – and one of the reasons invoked by respondent’s social worker – is to provide
aid to an individual who cannot care for herself as a result of a mental illness. See, e.g.,
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 426 (1979) (characterizing civil commitment as an adjunct to
“providing care” to individuals with mental illness). Accordingly, this Court should start from
the uncontested premise that the ADA applies to arrests and requires reasonable
accommodations in that context. (…) Respondent was, moreover, a “qualified individual”
within the meaning of Title II of the ADA. In the circumstances of this case – like many others –
respondent was subject to arrest not because of any immediate danger she posed to the public
but because of concern that she was gravely disabled and might pose such a danger if untreated.
There was – at least on the view of the facts most favorable to respondent – no reason that
petitioners could not have provided a reasonable accommodatioWn(fAoArCtLr)a–nsMpIoCrHt AhEeLrAto. AaYmELeEdic1a1l
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
facility. Petitioners argue that, because of “the danger Sheehan posed to the officers . . . at the
time the officers re-opened her door,” she was not “qualified” to receive any reasonable
accommodation. Pet. Br. 17; see id. at 19-23. But that argument improperly narrows the focus of
the reasonable-accommodation inquiry, as the Ninth Circuit properly recognized. In a case
involving involuntary civil detention and transportation of an individual who poses no immediate
threat, the reasonable-accommodation inquiry should examine the entire course of the encounter
between law enforcement and the individual with a disability. Application of ordinary police
arrest procedures in such a case would often be inappropriate, and the failure to employ
techniques appropriate to dealing with an individual with a known mental illness may be
unreasonable. To the extent a public entity fails to employ such techniques, such failure may
constitute precisely the sort of discrimination against individuals with disability that the ADA
was intended to address. Applying petitioners’ narrow focus would improperly deprive qualified
individuals of the statute’s protection. As noted above, research shows that ordinary police
techniques, including threats of physical force, can render encounters with individuals with
mental illness more dangerous to those individuals and to the arresting officer. Unnecessarily
subjecting individuals with mental illness to such risks is a clear example of a failure to provide
a reasonable accommodation and therefore discrimination within the meaning of the ADA. And
an individual should not lose the protection of the statute because a failure to provide
reasonable accommodation triggers the very reaction that the reasonable accommodation
was designed to prevent. Amicus NLC argues (at 14-15) that knowing of respondent’s mental
illness gave the officers no additional ability to predict whether Ms. Sheehan would react
violently under the circumstances. That contention is hard to understand on the record of this
case – the officers had time to consult with the social worker on the scene and develop an
approach that would respond to Ms. Sheehan’s psychiatric needs without escalating the
situation. In any event, whether, in any given case, circumstances call for any particular
accommodation will necessarily depend on the facts. Where there is evidence that a public entity
failed to follow established procedures for effectuating involuntary civil commitment, a jury
might reasonably conclude that police officers have not provided the accommodations required
by the ADA. Petitioners argue (at 18, 28) that they had no obligation to provide reasonable
accommodations for Ms. Sheehan’s mental illness because she posed a “direct threat” to their
safety. For the reasons explained above, however, petitioners’ argument rests on improperly
restricting the focus of the reasonable accommodation inquiry. The obligation to provide
reasonable accommodations arose once police were called to transport an individual with a
serious mental illness to a facility for treatment, before she represented a direct threat.
Moreover, even when a “direct threat” is present, the obligation to provide a “reasonable
accommodation” exists as long as police could allay the threat through reasonable
accommodations. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.139(b) (“In determining whether an individual poses a
direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public entity must make an individualized
assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the
best available objective evidence, to ascertain . . . whether reasonable modifications of policies,
practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk.”).
Research and the experience of mental health professionals indicate that there are reasonable
accommodations police departments can employ during encounters with individuals with mental
illness and that those accommodations can mitigate the risk caused by mental illnesses. To the
extent any threat Ms. Sheehan posed could have been mitigated through better training or direct
involvement of mental health professionals, Ms. Sheehan did not pose a “direct threat” under
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 12
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
Department of Justice regulations. Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Council on Disability in
Support of Respondent – City and County of San Francisco, California, et al v Terersa Sheehan,
NCD.: https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015
xi The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., requires
police officers to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with mental illnesses at the
time of arrest. None of the parties asks this Court to conclude otherwise. Encounters with
individuals with mental illnesses, many of which involve either no criminal conduct or only
nuisance crimes that may reflect the individuals’ illnesses, are an everyday part of law
enforcement. Preserving the ADA’s protection in those encounters is close to the heart of
the statute’s non-discrimination mandate. The judgment whether a public entity has provided a
reasonable accommodation – and whether an individual is “qualified” within the meaning of the
ADA – should take into account the entire encounter between law enforcement and an individual
with a mental illness. When police are called to detain and transport an individual for
involuntary hospitalization, there is an opportunity to provide reasonable accommodations. And
where the alleged failure to make such reasonable accommodations – for example, to provide
appropriate training or to employ trained personnel using established protocols – is the partial
cause of threatening or violent behavior in an individual suffering from severe mental illness,
that individual should not be deprived of the statute’s protection. (…) The obligation to provide
reasonable accommodations for individuals with mental illness at the time of arrest imposes no
unfair burden on public entities. Established approaches to training police officers and
implementing programs and procedures designed to reduce the risk to individuals subject to
arrest and to law enforcement have been reported to improve law enforcement outcomes without
imposing significant additional costs on public authorities. (…) The Ninth Circuit determined
that “Title II [of the ADA] applies to arrests.” Pet. App. 43. We do not understand any party or
amicus before this Court to disagree with that proposition, and it is correct. The ADA is a
broadly worded non-discrimination statute. See PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661,
675 (2001) (“[o]ne of the Act’s most impressive strengths has been identified as its
comprehensive character” making it “a milestone on the path to a more decent, tolerant,
progressive society”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Title II of the Act, which
covers public services, provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of
such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,
programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
42 U.S.C. § 12132. “Discrimination includes a failure to reasonably accommodate a person’s
disability.” Pet. App. 41. Binding regulations adopted by the Department of Justice broadly
require that “a public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or
procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of
disability,” unless such modifications would fundamentally change the government activity. 28
C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7); cf. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) (defining discrimination for purposes of
Title III of the ADA to include the “failure to make reasonable modifications”). Bringing an
individual into custody constitutes a “service, program, or activity of a public entity.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 12132; see also United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 154 (2006) (“‘public entity’” includes
“‘any State or local government’” and “‘any department agency or other instrumentality of a
State’”) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)) (alteration in original). Moreover, the manner in which
an arresting officer treats an arrestee or suspect falls comfortably within the broad meaning of
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 13
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
“benefit.” This Court has previously construed the ADA to apply to prisons, holding that such
institutions “fall squarely within the statutory definition of ‘public entity.’” Pennsylvania Dep’t
of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998). In so holding, the Court noted that prisons provide
inmates with “‘benefits’ of ‘programs, services, or activities,’ as those terms are ordinarily
understood.” Id. That law enforcement provides “benefits” within the meaning of the ADA in the
context of effectuating an arrest follows from Yeskey.(…) Applying the ADA to arrests of
individuals known to be suffering from mental illness is of surpassing importance precisely
because encounters between law enforcement and individuals with mental illness are such an
integral part of police work. See supra pp. 4-8. Requiring state and local governments to provide
reasonable accommodations for individuals with mental illness does not impose an unfair
burden. What is called for, after all, is reasonable accommodation. Brief Amicus Curiae of the
National Council on Disability in Support of Respondent – City and County of San Francisco,
California, et al v Terersa Sheehan, NCD.: https://ncd.gov/publications/2015/02172015
xii City and County of San Francisco, California et al v Sheehan, Supreme Court of the United
States.: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1412_0pl1.pdf
xiii U.S House passes most ambitious police reform effort in decades; The Guardian.:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/03/george-floyd-justice-in-policing-act-us-
house-democrats
Sweeping George Floyd police reform bill stalls as talks collapse, The Guardian.:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/22/us-police-reform-bill-congress-bipartisan-
talks
This bill addresses a wide range of policies and issues regarding policing practices and law
enforcement accountability. It increases accountability for law enforcement misconduct, restricts
the use of certain policing practices, enhances transparency and data collection, and establishes
best practices and training requirements.
The bill enhances existing enforcement mechanisms to remedy violations by law enforcement.
Among other things, it does the following:
lowers the criminal intent standard—from willful to knowing or reckless—to convict a
law enforcement officer for misconduct in a federal prosecution,
limits qualified immunity as a defense to liability in a private civil action against a law
enforcement officer, and
grants administrative subpoena power to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in pattern-or-
practice investigations.
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 14
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
It establishes a framework to prevent and remedy racial profiling by law enforcement at the
federal, state, and local levels. It also limits the unnecessary use of force and restricts the use of
no-knock warrants, chokeholds, and carotid holds.
The bill creates a national registry—the National Police Misconduct Registry—to compile data
on complaints and records of police misconduct. It also establishes new reporting requirements,
including on the use of force, officer misconduct, and routine policing practices (e.g., stops and
searches).
Finally, it directs DOJ to create uniform accreditation standards for law enforcement agencies
and requires law enforcement officers to complete training on racial profiling, implicit bias, and
the duty to intervene when another officer uses excessive force. George Floyd Justice in Policing
Act of 2021, Congress.: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1280
xiv District Attorney Chesa Boudin’s office announced homicide charges today against San
Francisco Police Officer Kenneth Cha following the 2017 shooting of Sean Moore. Moore, who
was unarmed, died in 2020 from his injuries. The prosecution marks the second time in San
Francisco history that the District Attorney has filed homicide charges against an on-duty police
officer. The first was in late 2020, when Boudin charged rookie officer Christopher Samavoa for
shooting dead unarmed Keita O’Neil from out the window of his police car. DA files homicide
charges against SFPD officer in shooting death of Sean Moore, Mission Local.:
https://missionlocal.org/2021/11/da-files-homicide-charges-against-sfpd-officer-in-shooting-
death-of-sean-moore/
xv San Francisco Police Officer Kenneth Cha today pleaded not guilty Tuesday to homicide
charges, nearly five years after he shot Sean Moore, a schizophrenic, on the steps of Moore’s
own home, and two years after Moore’s death from those injuries. Cha did not appear in court
Tuesday morning, but his attorney, Scott Burrell, entered the plea on his behalf as Moore’s
mother and brother looked on. Meanwhile, about 20 protesters dressed in black stood on the
courthouse steps at 850 Bryant St., carrying signs and chanting in support of Moore’s
family. (…) Burrell confirmed that Cha is still employed by the San Francisco Police
Department, but no longer has his department-issued firearm. (…) Cha and another officer
arrived at Moore’s home in the Oceanview neighborhood on Jan. 6, 2017, responding to a noise
complaint from a neighbor. Moore, who had earlier mental-health episodes, was allegedly
making noise through the walls. Moore and the officers ended up arguing for a few minutes
while Moore stayed behind the gate of his home, asking the officers to leave and saying he did
not violate the restraining order his neighbor had against him. (…) The incident was caught on
the officers’ body cameras and, as it escalated, Cha pepper-sprayed Moore. The video footage
shows officers shouting for Moore to come outside, saying he is under arrest and that they will
get him a medic for the pepper spray. When Moore eventually complies, Cha’s partner hits
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 15
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
Moore with a baton and Moore appears to strike back against the officer, but he has no weapon.
The officer falls down the steps, and Cha then runs up the stairs and shoots Moore twice. In all,
eight minutes lapsed between the time the officers arrived and the shooting. Kenneth Cha, officer
who killed Sean Moore, pleads not guilty, Mission Local.:
https://missionlocal.org/2021/11/police-officer-pleads-not-guilty-in-sean-moores-shooting-death/
xvi Freddie Gray, Info Please.: https://www.infoplease.com/people/who2-biography/freddie-gray
xvii A court filing from the day of Gray’s arrest showed he was charged with illegally carrying a
knife, which an officer said was discovered inside one of Gray’s pockets. However Rawlings-
Blake said: “We know that having a knife is not necessarily a crime, not necessarily a probable
cause to search someone.” Billy Murphy Jr, an attorney for Gray’s family, said earlier on
Monday the knife charge did not explain why Gray was chased and searched. “How did they
have x-ray vision or any knowledge of that?” Murphy said. “If you arrest a man illegally the
evidence you find afterwards is not admissible. There’s always the temptation – because you’re
dealing with human beings – that they’re going to cover this up in a way that makes them look
faultless.”
Rodriguez confirmed Gray “gave up without the use of force” and while one officer unholstered
his Taser, he did not deploy it during the arrest. Footage recorded by a nearby city surveillance
camera, which was played at Monday’s press conference, did not appear to shed light on what
happened. Cellphone video of Gray’s arrest released last week showed him being dragged into
the police van by officers. While he was shouting in apparent pain and moving his head, at least
one of his legs appeared limp. The video did not show his initial treatment by police.
Rawlings-Blake said there was no footage recorded inside the van. Police said the other prisoner
in the back of the van had been interviewed. An “independent review board” is to be convened
by police chiefs to look into the incident and report back on whether procedures were
followed.An account of the incident in the court filing, written by an officer Garrett Miller, said
that after being “arrested without force or incident,” during his transportation to the police’s
western district headquarters Gray “suffered a medical emergency and was immediately
transported to Shock Trauma via medic.” Six Baltimore officers suspended over police-van
death of Freddie Gray, The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2015/apr/20/baltimore-officers-suspended-death-freddie-gray
Freddie Gray's death on April 19 leaves many unanswered questions. But it is clear that when
Gray was arrested in West Baltimore on the morning of April 12, he was struggling to walk. By
the time he arrived at the police station a half hour later, he was unable to breathe or talk, 16
suffering from wounds that would kill him. (…) Gray died Sunday from spinal injuries.
Baltimore authorities say they're investigating how the 25-year-old was hurt—a somewhat
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
perverse notion, given that it was while he was in police custody, and hidden from public view,
that he apparently suffered injury. How it happened remains unknown. It's even difficult to
understand why officers arrested Gray in the first place. But with protesters taking to the streets
of Baltimore since Gray's death on Sunday, the incident falls into a line of highly publicized,
fatal encounters between black men and the police. The Mysterious Death of Freddie Gray, The
Atlantic.: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-mysterious-death-of-freddie-
gray/391119/
The Baltimore Sun found that police missed the opportunity to examine some evidence that could
have shed light on events. For example, by the time police canvassed one neighborhood looking
for video from security cameras, a convenience store camera pointed at a key intersection had
already taped over its recordings of that morning. The Sun also found that accounts from
residents conflicted with the official version of events, including a police account that Gray's
arrest was made “without force or incident.” The 45-minute mystery of Freddie Gray’s death,
The Baltimore Sun.: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-gray-ticker-20150425-
story.html#page=1
xviii Police Commissioner Anthony Batts told reporters there are no excuses for the fact that Gray
was not buckled in as he was transported to a police station. Five days after Gray’s death and
amid ongoing protests, police officials acknowledged mistakes were made during and after his
arrest. Police: We failed to get Freddie Gray timely medical care after arrest, CNN.:
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/24/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-death/index.html
The sources quoted by the Washington-based station said the medical examiner had determined
Gray's death was caused by a catastrophic injury after he slammed into the back of the police
transport van while inside it, “apparently breaking his neck; a head injury he sustained matches
a bolt in the back of the van.” The station said it was unclear what caused Gray to slam into the
back of the van and whether Gray caused the injury. An official in the state's Office of the Chief
Medical Examiner wouldn't comment to CNN on the report, citing an ongoing investigation. The
official said the autopsy report on Gray could be delivered to the State's Attorney Office “as
soon as tomorrow or early next week.” Staff members were still doing examinations Thursday,
the official said. The completion and delivery of the final report will depend on how quickly that
evaluation is completed and compiled. While it could be sent Friday, there is still the possibility
it won't be ready until early next week, the official said. How Gray was injured and whether
police are liable for his death are questions now in the hands of the state's attorney for
Baltimore City. Report: Freddie Gray sustained injury in back of police van, CNN.:
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/30/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-death-investigation/
Four days after Gray was injured in police custody, Baltimore Police officials released
a timeline for the incident, which had just three stops – the pickup on Presbury Street, a second
stop just one block away, and the Western District Police Station. The timeline also revealed
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 17
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
what time police called for an ambulance to come to the station: 30 minutes elapsed between the
van’s departure from Stop Two and the call for a medic. But the police station was just four
blocks away, and Freddie was allegedly found unconscious when they open the doors. So, what
had happened during that half hour? Why did it take so long to call a medic? That was the big
mystery at the heart of the two-week-long police investigation. Except it wasn’t a mystery to
investigators – or it shouldn’t have been, anyway. Each of these three stops on the original
timeline was given it’s own specific timestamp, in hours, minutes and seconds, but there was no
explanation for where they came from. It turns out the timestamps came directly from calls
between the involved officers and police dispatch, which means investigators were using that
audio to figure out the timeline. As of April 16th, police were accounting for just three stops –
not the eventual six. All of the dispatch audio related to Freddie Gray’s arrest and transport was
eventually played in court – there are calls pertaining to five of the stops. That means
investigators knew about Stop Four, where Officer William Porter had responded to Goodson’s
dispatch request for a prisoner check. And they certainly knew about the van’s fifth stop to pick
up a second prisoner, because Goodson was clearly heard alerting the dispatcher that he was on
his way. Instead of including all of the stops they knew about on their timeline, BPD kept quiet
about Stop Four and Stop Five, leaving that mysterious 30-minute gap instead. Death of Freddie
Gray: 5 Things You Didn’t Know. Rolling Stone.: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-
features/death-of-freddie-gray-5-things-you-didnt-know-129327/
xix Gray is not the first person to come out of a Baltimore police wagon with serious injuries.
Relatives of Dondi Johnson Sr., who was left a paraplegic after a 2005 police van ride, won a
$7.4 million verdict against police officers. A year earlier, Jeffrey Alston was awarded $39
million by a jury after he became paralyzed from the neck down as the result of a van ride.
Others have also received payouts after filing lawsuits. For some, such injuries have been
inflicted by what is known as a "rough ride" — an "unsanctioned technique" in which police
vans are driven to cause "injury or pain" to unbuckled, handcuffed detainees, former city police
officer Charles J. Key testified as an expert five years ago in a lawsuit over Johnson's
subsequent death.As daily protests continue in the streets of Baltimore, authorities are trying to
determine how Gray was injured, and their focus is on the 30-minute van ride that followed his
arrest. "It's clear what happened, happened inside the van," Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake
said Monday at a news conference.
Christine Abbott, a 27-year-old assistant librarian at the Johns Hopkins University, is suing city
officers in federal court, alleging that she got such a ride in 2012. According to the suit, officers
cuffed Abbott's hands behind her back, threw her into a police van, left her unbuckled and
"maniacally drove" her to the Northern District police station, "tossing [her] around the interior
of the police van." "They were braking really short so that I would slam against the wall, and
they were taking really wide, fast turns," Abbott said in an interview that mirrored allegations in
her lawsuit. "I couldn't brace myself. I was terrified." The lawsuit states she suffered unspecified
injuries from the arrest and the ride. "You feel like a piece of cargo," she added. "You don't feel
human." The van's driver stated in a deposition that Abbott was not buckled into her seat belt,
but the officers have denied driving recklessly. Freddie Gray not the first to come out of
Baltimore police van with serious injuries, The Baltimore Sun.:
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 18
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-gray-rough-rides-20150423-
story.html#page=1
xx Freddie Gray suffered a single "high-energy injury" to his neck and spine — most likely
caused when the police van in which he was riding suddenly decelerated, according to a copy of
the autopsy report obtained by The Baltimore Sun. The state medical examiner's office concluded
that Gray's death could not be ruled an accident, and was instead a homicide, because officers
failed to follow safety procedures “through acts of omission.” Though Gray was loaded into the
van on his belly, the medical examiner surmised that he may have gotten to his feet and was
thrown into the wall during an abrupt change in direction. He was not belted in, but his wrists
and ankles were shackled, putting him “at risk for an unsupported fall during acceleration or
deceleration of the van.” The medical examiner compared Gray's injury to those seen in
shallow-water diving incidents. (…) In concluding his death was a homicide, Assistant Medical
Examiner Carol H. Allan wrote that it was "not an unforeseen event that a vulnerable individual
was injured during operation of the vehicle, and that without prompt medical attention, the
injury would prove fatal." (…) “Reportedly, Mr. Gray was still yelling and shaking the van,” the
medical examiner wrote. “He was removed from the van and placed on the ground in a kneeling
position, facing the van doors, while ankle cuffs were placed, and then slid onto the floor of the
van, belly down and head first, reportedly still verbally and physically active.” Autopsy of
Freddie Gray shows ‘high-energy’ impact, The Baltimore Sun.:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-freddie-gray-autopsy-20150623-story.html
xxi Prosecutors dropped all charges Wednesday against three Baltimore police officers accused
in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, bringing to an end one of the highest-profile criminal
cases in the city's history with zero convictions. Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby
acknowledged the long odds of securing convictions in the remaining cases following the
acquittals of three other officers on similar though more serious charges.
In a hearing Wednesday meant to start the trial of Officer Garrett Miller, prosecutors dropped
their cases against him, Officer William Porter and Sgt. Alicia White. Circuit Judge Barry G.
Williams, who had acquitted the other officers, was expected to preside over the remaining trials
as well. After the most recent acquittal and “a great deal of thought and prayer,” Mosby said,
she resolved to drop the remaining charges. Mosby stood by her decision to bring the charges,
pointing out that the medical examiner's office ruled Gray's death a homicide and that it's her
job as the city's top prosecutor to seek justice. (…)
Gray's death has reverberated across Baltimore and the country at a time of national debate
over the deaths of young black men in altercations with police. Gray, 25, died of severe neck
injuries suffered in the back of a police van. He'd been shackled and handcuffed, but not secured
in a seat belt. Mostly peaceful protests erupted in Baltimore and lasted for days following his
death. Then, on the day of his funeral, rioting, looting and arson broke out — and images of
Baltimore in chaos were broadcast to an international audience. Mosby charged the six
Baltimore officers days later with offenses ranging from second-degree depraved-heart murder
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 19
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
to manslaughter, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office. The case pitted Mosby against
police, and their verbal sparring Wednesday raised questions about their ability to cooperate
going forward. The Fraternal Order of Police accused Mosby of pursuing a malicious and
wrong-headed prosecution, while she accused police investigators of sabotage. The case proved
costly for the city. The state's attorney's office and Police Department, which bought riot gear
and paid officers’ overtime in anticipation of protests, spent an estimated $7.4 million on the
trials, city officials said Wednesday. In addition, the city reached a $6.4 million settlement last
year with Gray's family. Charges dropped, Freddie Gray cases concluded with zero convictions
against officers. The Baltimore Sun.: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-
miller-pretrial-motions-20160727-story.html
The Baltimore Police Department’s Force Investigation Team failed to follow standard
protocols around interviewing witnesses and evidence collection in the immediate aftermath of
Gray’s injury. For instance, Officer Zachary Novak – who both loaded Gray into the van and
found him unconscious later that morning – was given power over evidence collection,
interviewing witnesses, and writing reports on day one. As a major witness, Novak’s had a
conflict of interest and he should not have been given investigatory powers. He later received
immunity from prosecution.
In another possible example, instead of being treated as a crime scene, sources close to the case
have told us that the transport van was almost immediately put back into service. This possibility
was discussed during the trials, when a witness from the crime lab was unable to trace the chain
of evidence for the van all the way back to the day of the incident. In addition, other expert
testimony revealed that days, even weeks, went by before standard evidence collection
procedures occurred, like photographing the inside of the van, testing for fingerprints and DNA,
or collecting blood samples.
The prosecution, meanwhile, suffered from the same issue that we see again and again in
wrongful conviction cases: tunnel vision. In court, they avoided any evidence that complicated
their story that Goodson, the van driver, had given Gray a “rough ride” between Stop Two and
Stop Four. They accepted the unreliable CCTV footage as proof of Stops Three and Four, while
ignoring the witnesses who saw brutality being used against Gray at Stops One and Two.
Despite being publicly at war with the police department over how the investigation was
handled, the state’s case depended too much on the evidence police had collected – including
statements from the defendants and other involved officers – instead of what they hadn’t.
Prosecutors hinged their narrative on the findings of the Medical Examiner, Dr. Carol Allan.
Because Freddie Gray’s fatal injury resembled a “shallow diving accident,” Allan ruled out the
possibility of it happening during his arrest, when Officer Miller allegedly pressed his knee into
Gray’s neck. But Allan never considered the possibility of a fatal injury at Stop Two, where
witness Jacqueline Jackson saw Gray thrown head first into the van. That’s because Dr. Allan
was never given statements from civilian witnesses. Instead, she was only provided with
statements made by the defendants and other police officers – and since they claimed that Gray
was violently shaking the van, Allan determined he couldn’t have been injured during Stop Two.
But these police accounts are contradicted by statements from other witnesses as well as the
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 20
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
CCTV footage. While Mosby’s team fought hard in court, it’s their decisions out of court that
call into question their pursuit of the truth. Death of Freddie Gray: 5 Things You Didn’t Know,
Rolling Stone.: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/death-of-freddie-gray-5-
things-you-didnt-know-129327/
xxii Baltimore prosecutors shed new light on their rationale for some of the charges against the
officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray, saying in a court filing that Gray had been
illegally detained before officers found a knife in his pocket. In announcing the charges this
month, State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby said that the folding knife, which police initially
described as a switchblade, was not illegal under state law, and so Gray should not have been
arrested.
Defense attorneys for the officers who were charged with falsely arresting Gray, 25, have said
prosecutors overlooked city law, which they say forbids possession of such a knife. They have
used the distinction to argue that the case against the officers was rushed and flawed. In a
response filed Monday, Chief Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow wrote that Gray was
detained "well before the arresting officers knew he possessed a knife." The often-stinging 11-
page rebuttal comes as prosecutors are asking a judge to impose a gag order on the participants
in the case. A judge has not ruled on the request. Mosby’s office: Defense attacks in Gray case
‘like pinball on machine far past ‘TILT’. The Baltimore Sun.:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-freddie-gray-prosecutors-respond-
20150519-story.html#page=1
The Baltimore Police Department waited until the day after Freddie Gray died to publicly
disclose that he had been arrested for possession of an illegal switchblade. But when State’s
Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced the charges against the six police officers, she claimed,
“The knife was not a switchblade and is lawful under Maryland law.” (…) Our investigation
found that Mosby was right. Pictures and videos of the knife, released just after the trials
concluded, show a type of legal knife known as an “assisted opener” not a switchblade under
any interpretation of Baltimore City or Maryland State law. The distinction between these types
of knives is clearly established by the federal definition of a switchblade, by every knife expert
we consulted and by countless retailers, which sell assisted opener knives legally inside and
outside of Baltimore City. Death of Freddie Gray: 5 Things You Didn’t Know. Rolling Stone.:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/death-of-freddie-gray-5-things-you-didnt-
know-129327/
xxiii Federal Officials Decline Prosecution in the Death of Freddie Gray, Department of Justice
(DOJ).: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-officials-decline-prosecution-death-freddie-gray
xxiv Today, we announce the outcome of the Department of Justice’s investigation of the
Baltimore City Police Department (BPD). After engaging in a thorough investigation, initiated
at the request of the City of Baltimore and BPD, the Department of Justice concludes that
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 21
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
there is reasonable cause to believe that BPD engages in a pattern or practice of conduct that
violates the Constitution or federal law. BPD engages in a pattern or practice of:
(1) making unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests;
(2) using enforcement strategies that produce severe and unjustified disparities in the
rates of stops, searches and arrests of African Americans;
(3) using excessive force; and
(4) retaliating against people engaging in constitutionally-protected expression.
This pattern or practice is driven by systemic deficiencies in BPD’s policies, training,
supervision, and accountability structures that fail to equip officers with the tools they need to
police effectively and within the bounds of the federal law. Investigation of the Baltimore City
Police Department. U.S Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/883296/download
xxv Federal Communications Commission (FCC).: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-
372303A1.pdf
xxvi Hannity Challenges Hillary Clinton to Sue Fox News for Defamation After Her ‘Actual
Malice’ Claims: ‘Bring It On’ The Wrap.: https://www.thewrap.com/sean-hannity-hillary-
clintons-malice-fox-news/
xxvii USA v Michael A. Sussman. Criminal Case No. 21 – 582. Document Cloud.:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21208256-john-durham-sussmann-filing-21122
xxviii USA v Michael A. Sussman. Criminal Case No. 21 – 582. Document Cloud.:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21217929/sussmann-response.pdf
xxix Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has done it. No, I don't just mean
becoming the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. I'm talking something potentially even
more remarkable. She's become the key topic of conversation for Fox News commentators. In
fact, President Trump's favorite network has what I'd like to refer to as “Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez derangement syndrome.” They can't stop talking everything Ocasio-Cortez, from her
choice of footwear to the type of apartment she can afford to the alleged impending doom she
presents for America. Fox News has found a new ‘villain’ in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, CNN.:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/25/opinions/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-fox-news-obsession-
obeidallah/index.html
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 22
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
The Fox News host Tucker Carlson attacked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Friday night,
claiming the US congresswoman was not a woman of colour. “She’s a rich entitled white lady,”
he said. In return, the New York Democrat, popularly known as AOC, said: “This is the type of
stuff you say when your name starts with a P and ends with dejo.”
Dictionary.com defines pendejo as “a mildly vulgar insult for ‘asshole’ or ‘idiot’ in Spanish”.
“Once again,” Ocasio-Cortez added, “the existence of a wife or daughters doesn’t make a man
good. And this one is basura.” Basura is Spanish for “trash”. She also accused Carlson of
sexual harassment. Ocasio-Cortez’s mother is from Puerto Rico, her father from the Bronx. She
has described herself as a woman of colour. AOC calls Tucker Carlson ‘trash’ for saying she is
not a woman of colour, The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/19/aoc-
tucker-carlson-ocasio-cortez-fox-news-woman-of-colour
xxx For the curious, in Latinx culture children take *both* their parents‘ names. It’s not a
“progressive, new thing.” It’s just how some names work. PR hyphenates, others mark
differently. Your last name = the families that came together to make you. AOC is also fine
though (…) My last name is Ocasio-Cortez. Full stop. That’s my name. No, you can’t say
“Cortez.” I’ve never used that in my life. “Cortez” is referring to someone else. Even if they‘re
trying to be rude + wrong, my dad’s last name was Ocasio anyway. (His name was hyphenated
too, though.) (…) By the way: Fox News likes to say my name (incorrectly) as “Cortez,” which I
can only imagine is bc that sounds more ‘stereotypically’ Hispanic + probably incites more
‘anxiety’ for them. Pro Tip: My last name is not “Cortez,” just as theirs isn’t “Ingra” or “Carl”
or “Hann.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter.:
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1108534032688652288
xxxi Judge Jef Rakoff, the judge overseeing former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit
against the New York Times, said Monday afternoon that he will dismiss the suit, ruling that
Palin’s team did not prove a key element of its case. Rakoff's ruling came while the jury is
deliberating over a verdict -- and Rakoff said he will allow the jury to continue deliberating and
to reach a verdict, and will dismiss the case once it has done so. Rakoff presented his findings --
a clear round-one win for The Times -- with an eye toward an inevitable appeals process. The
judge said Palin did not prove “actual malice,” which is the standard her legal team had to meet
in her defamation case. The landmark 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan case specifies that
public figures who sue for defamation must prove that the offender knew the claim was false or
showed "reckless disregard" for the truth. Judge in Sarah Palin’s defamation suit against New
York Times says he will dismiss case. CNN.: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/14/media/sarah-
palin-new-york-times-case-dismissed/index.html
The New York Times has prevailed in defending itself against a defamation lawsuit brought by
Sarah Palin after jurors found she had not proven her case. The jury of nine, which had been
deliberating since Friday afternoon, found the Times not liable for defamation against Palin.
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 23
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
Unbeknownst to them, during deliberations, Judge Jed Rakoff ruled that Palin's attorneys did not
prove a key element of their case, and that he would set aside the jury's verdict should it have
found for Palin. After the jury delivered its unanimous verdict Tuesday, Judge Rakoff briefly told
jurors about his decision to dismiss the case and said he and the jurors both came to the same
decision. “Your job was to decide the facts. My job was to decide the law,” Rakoff said.
Palin did not prove “actual malice,” the judge said, which is the standard her legal team had to
meet in her defamation case. The landmark 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan case specifies that
public figures who sue for defamation must prove that the offender knew the claim was false or
showed “reckless disregard” for the truth. "The law here sets a very high standard,” Rakoff said
Monday. “The court finds that that standard has not been met.” Palin's attorney Kenneth Turkel
said he is proud of his client for the “strength, resolve and courage to pick a fight with The New
York Times.” Turkel spoke to the media outside of a lower Manhattan courthouse, saying he and
his team are, “going to evaluate all our options for appeal.” Sarah Palin did not speak to
cameras when she left the courthouse.
Attorneys for the Times celebrated Monday, hugging each other in court after Rakoff made his
decision. “The New York Times welcomes today's verdict. It is a reaffirmation of a fundamental
tenet of American law: public figures should not be permitted to use libel suits to punish or
intimidate news organizations that make, acknowledge and swiftly correct unintentional errors,"
Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said in a statement after Tuesday's verdict. "It is
gratifying that the jury and the judge understood the legal protections for the news media and
our vital role in American society. We also want to thank the jurors for their careful
deliberations in a difficult area of the law.” Jury finds that Sarah Palin failed to prove her
defamation case against the New York Times, CNN.:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/15/media/sarah-palin-new-york-times-verdict/index.html
xxxii Former New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet took the witness stand in the
trial for Sarah Palin's lawsuit against the paper, telling the court he thought he had apologized
to Palin for an editorial that erroneously linked her to the deadly 2011 shooting that injured
former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. “Did you ever apologize to Governor Palin?” her
attorney, Shane Vogt asked Bennet. “My hope is that as a consequence of this process now I
have,” Bennet said.
Palin sued the Times and Bennet for falsely linking a map that her political action committee put
out to the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, that left six dead and Giffords injured. The Times
wrote that the map put crosshairs over Giffords and other democratic lawmakers, when in
reality, the map put crosshairs over their districts. The Times said it issued a correction
“quickly” after the piece was published.
The editorial, with the headline “America's Lethal Politics,” was published on June 14, 2017 in
the wake of a shooting at a baseball practice that injured Rep. Steve Scalise and other members
of Congress. For Palin to prevail in this trial, her lawyers need to prove to the jury that Bennet
and the Times acted with “actual malice,” the standard set for public figures in defamation
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 24
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
cases in the landmark New York Times vs. Sullivan case.
Attorneys read emails from Bennet in court that show that Bennet emailed colleagues shortly
after the editorial started being criticized, saying he felt “horrible” about the mistake. Palin's
attorneys have alleged that Bennet had a “political narrative” and willfully disregarded multiple
articles that had been written showing there was no link between the map and the shooting that
injured Giffords. Multiple former New York Times colleagues of Bennet's testified that he added
language into a draft of the editorial that erroneously said there was a clear link between the
map and the Giffords shooting. Bennet testified that, shortly after the piece was published, he
was contacted by a fellow Times colleague who interpreted the editorial as saying that the man
who shot Giffords and others “was incited by Sarah Palin or somebody else.” “That is not the
message we intended to send,” Bennet testified. Bennet, who no longer works at the Times,
testified he did not take the editorial down as he and others worked to research and write a
correction, saying that the paper had a rule in place at the time against “unpublishing stories.”
“If you publish a story you couldn't then just pull it down,” Bennet said. Bennet also testified
about the paper receiving questions from reporters including CNN's Oliver Darcy about the
editorial, and that a statement attributed to Bennet was given as a response to Darcy. Former
editorial page editor James Bennet testifies in Palin v NYT trial: ‘I thought I had apologized to
her’ CNN.: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/08/media/sarah-palin-james-bennet-
testimony/index.html
xxxiii New York Times Company v Sullivan. Oyez.: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39
xxxiv Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby Facing Perjury and False Mortgage
Application Charges Related to Her Purchase of Two Vacation Properties, Department of
Justice.: https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/baltimore-city-state-s-attorney-marilyn-mosby-
facing-perjury-and-false-mortgage
xxxv Baltimore City State’s Attorney Denies Charges She Calls Retaliation for Indicting Law
Enforcement, MSNBC.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1gPs5xRGR4
xxxvi Baltimore’s top prosecutor pleads not guilty on federal perjury charges, New York Post.:
https://nypost.com/2022/02/05/baltimore-state-attorney-marilyn-mosby-pleads-not-guilty-to-
federal-perjury-charges/
xxxvii In the past four decades, the cost of policing in the US has tripled and is now $115bn,
according to a recent analysis. That steady increase comes as crime has been consistently
declining. In most cities, spending on police is significantly greater than spending on services
and other departments ($1.8bn on police in Los Angeles, for exaWm(pAlAeC, Lw)h–icMhICisHAmEoLrAe.tAhaYEnLE 25
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
half the city’s general fund). The Covid-19 economic crisis has led cities and states to make
drastic budget cuts to education, youth programs, arts and culture, parks, libraries, housing
services and more. But police budgets have grown or gone largely untouched – until pressure
from protests this week. (…) Almost overnight and in direct response to protests, some mayors
and other elected leaders have reversed their position on police funding. The mayor of LA said
he would look to cut as much as $150m from the police, just two days after he pushed forward a
city budget that was increasing it by 7%. A New York councilman has called for a $1 bn
divestment from the NYPD. In Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, San Francisco and
other cities, local policymakers have expressed support for some form of defunding or opposing
police budget increases. Most radically, in Minneapolis, council members have discussed
potentially disbanding the embattled police department altogether. Colleges, public school
systems, museums and other institutions are also divesting from police. (…) While there is no
contemporary example of defunding in the US, there are studies suggesting that less policing
could mean less crime. In 2014 and 2015, New York officers staged a “slowdown” to protest the
mayor, arguing that if they did less police work, the city would be less safe. But the opposite
turned out to be true. When the officers took a break from “broken windows policing”, meaning
targeting low-level offenses, there was a drop in crime. Researchers posited that aggressive
policing on the streets for petty matters can ultimately cause social disruption and lead to more
crime. Policing that punishes poverty, such as hefty traffic tickets and debts, can also create
conditions where crime is more likely. When New York ended “stop and frisk”, crime did not
rise. (…) America’s legacy of racism and severe gun violence epidemic make it difficult to
compare to other countries. But some have pointed out that compared to peer nations, the US
spends significantly less on social services and more on public safety programs, and has
astronomically higher incarceration rates. These investments in police and prison, however,
don’t translate to a safer country. In fact, police in America kill more people in days than many
countries do in years. What does ‘defund the police’ mean? The rallying cry sweeping the US –
explained. The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/05/defunding-the-
police-us-what-does-it-mean
xxxviii With public pressure on them, mayors and city councils responded. In 2020 budget votes,
advocacy groups won over $840m in direct cuts from US police departments and at least $160m
investments in community services, according to an analysis by Interrupting Criminalization, an
initiative at the Barnard Center for Research on Women. In 25 cities, such as Denver and
Oakland officials moved to remove police from schools, saving an additional $34m. “Folks
might look at $840m as a drop in the bucket of the $100bn we spend on police each year, but it
definitely reverses the trend of constantly increasing police budgets over the past many
decades,” said Andrea J Ritchie, one of the Barnard researchers, “and it did so in a way that
also secured the transfer of funds from policing to community-based safety strategies.” In some
cases, the cuts came from leaving vacant positions unfilled or moving the accounting of certain
police functions to other agencies – changes that would probably have minimal immediate
impact. Other city leaders said their cuts were due to the Covid-19 economic crisis and not the
protests, and in 26 major cities, lawmakers continued to increase police budgets. But for cities
that did intentionally pass cuts, some of the changes were significant. Portland, Oregon, cut
$15m from its budget and disbanded a gun violence reduction uWnit(AaAnCdL)tr–aMnsIiCtHteAaEmL At.hAaYtEhLaEd b2o6th
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
long been accused of over-policing Black communities. San Francisco officials pledged to divest
$120 mfrom police over two years with plans to invest in health programs and workforce
training. Minneapolis is using police cuts to launch a mental health team to respond to certain
911 calls. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Baltimore and a
dozen other cities have all also reduced police spending. And some of these cities are now
demonstrating the impacts of their new budgets. (…)
Austin, Texas, has made some of the most dramatic changes in the country, directly cutting
roughly $20m from the police department, and moving $80m from the agency by shifting certain
services out of law enforcement. The city has gone from spending 40% of its $1.1bn general fund
on police to now allocating about 26% to law enforcement. “Public health and public safety are
at the heart of this,” said Chris Harris, the criminal justice director at Texas Appleseed, a local
not-for-profit. “When we take policing away, we are actually filling that void with alternatives
that we know are going to help.” (…) “For decades, Austin has spent so many dollars policing
homelessness, jailing the homeless, and paying for emergency rooms and 911 calls instead of
reinvesting those same dollars to finally start reducing homelessness,” said Casar, the local
councilmember. “By adjusting the police budget even just a little bit, we are going to be able to
house and help hundreds of people with these two hotels … and I hope we’ll be able to buy
more.” Austin has started redirecting certain 911 calls to mental health professionals – a move
meant to provide help to those crises instead of a potentially deadly response by police, Casar
said: “We know that we can solve the mental health crisis with treatment and care, not with
handcuffs and jail.” The redirected funds are also meant to benefit the crime victims who have
been traditionally neglected and mistreated by law enforcement, advocates said. Marina Garrett,
a 25-year-old Austin resident and supporter of the defund efforts, has spoken out about how
police mishandled her rape case. After she reported that she was sexually assaulted in 2015 at
age 19, she submitted to a forensic exam, but detectives didn’t move forward while awaiting
results for her rape kit, which was affected by a huge backlog. (…) During that time, the police
forensic lab shut down amid claims of misconduct and incompetence, and Garrett’s case
dragged on: “It was completely devastating. You wake up every day, and it’s all you can think
about. My whole life was on pause for two years.” It took two years for the results to come back,
and ultimately police and prosecutors did not move forward with a case: “I started to realize
that police were no help … and that police were making survivors wish they had not come
forward,” said Garrett, who is part of a class-action lawsuit against Austin police. With
reinvested police funds, Austin is now moving forward with a new independent forensic science
department. Garrett and other survivors have long pushed for the change. She said it was a
small step to reduce some of police’s jurisdiction over sexual assault survivors, but that law
enforcement remained largely ill-equipped to support victims. “We can’t just keep throwing
money at police and expect them to change their ways and culture, which is sexist and racist,”
she said. “There are groups that are trained to provide support to survivors and help them find
healing and justice, separate and apart from police.” Alicia Dean, a city spokesperson, declined
to comment on Garrett’s case, but said the police department supported the change in forensics,
adding in a statement, “the city is committed to improving best practices and outcomes of sexual
assault reporting, processing, investigations and prosecutions. We want all victims to feel safe,
heard and have confidence in every step of the process.” These US cities defunded police:
‘We’re transferring money to the community.’ The Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund-police-transferring-money-cWom(AmACuLn)i–tyMICHAEL A. AYELE 27
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
xxxix House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took aim at the progressive rhetoric around policing Sunday,
reiterating that a call to defund the police, a stance seeking a reduction in law enforcement
budgets, is “dead” “not the position of the Democratic Party.” It’s a sign of the divergent views
among Democrats regarding how policing should be conducted going forward, after Democrats
prioritized police reform in the run-up to the 2020 election. Pelosi made the remarks to ABC’s
George Stephanopoulos in response to a question about Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., who last week
rebutted calls from fellow Democrats telling her she should stop using the phrase. Pelosi’s
‘defund the police’ dismissal is insulting – and it hurts her legacy. MSNBC.:
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/pelosi-defund-the-police-rcna16118
As we’ve talked about on this show, (…) there has been an uptick in the number of homicides in
the United States. And we’ve debunked the myths about what led to that spike in homicides.
Republicans will have you believe that defunding the police has led to this but the fact of the
matter is that most cities and municipalities have not in fact defunded the police. And the very
few that had City Council’s vote in favor of redirecting some of the police budget have not
actually implemented it quite yet. (…) Now the question is: will the left tackle this on and provide
an alternative to the tough on crime legislation that Joe Biden had championed in the 1990s or
we just going to allow this pendulum to swing back to a tough on crime narrative? (…) What I
am seeing from Joe Biden so far is a bit of a mixed bag. (…) As the Associated Press reports,
“White House aides believe that Biden, with his long legislative record on crime as a former
senator, is not easy to paint as soft on the issue, and the president has been clear that he is
opposed to the ‘defund the police’ movement.” (…) What we’re seeing from the GOP and how
they’re essentially setting things up for the midterm elections is them focusing mostly on the
surge in crime and blaming the Democratic Party for it. (…) One can argue that it would be
difficult to blame Biden for the surge in crime considering the fact that one of the biggest
criticisms toward Biden was the fact that he championed the crime bill. (…) The crime bill was
draconian. It led to mass incarceration. It was of course a tough on crime piece of legislation
that led to quite a bit of criticism toward Biden by progressives. So the question is: will he go
back to those policies? Will Republicans succeed in painting him as someone who’s weak on
crime when he clearly has a record that’s the antithesis of that? (…) But here’s what we know so
far. Biden is not in favor of cutting police budgets. In fact, he is advocating for the use of a
significant portion of the Coronavirus relief bill to be utilized by municipalities to bolster
policing efforts locally. Ana Kasparian, The Young Turks.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgNy4GXQsQw&t=48s
Barack Obama chastised Democratic political candidates for using “snappy” slogans like
“defund the police” that he argued could turn voters away, in an interview released this week.
“You lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you’re
actually going to get the changes you want done,” the former president told show host Peter
Hamby in an interview with Good Luck America, a Snapchat political show. “The key is
deciding, do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the
people you already agree with?” Obama added. However, Obama also defended the place of
young progressives as important “new blood” in the Democratic party, singling out Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez – who has spoken out strongly on the phrase and the essence of defunding police
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 28
RECORDS REQUEST 02/22/2022
departments to boost social spending. (…) The remarks drew immediate backlash from notable,
Black progressive Democrats– including the Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar of
Minnesota, who stressed “defund the police” was not about mere words but a “demand for
equitable investments and budgets for communities across the country”. (…) “We didn’t lose
Breonna because of a ‘slogan’,” said Kentucky state representative Charles Booker,
referencing Breonna Taylor, the Black, Louisville woman who was shot dead in her own
apartment by police in March during a botched raid. Booker broke barriers in 2018 when he
became the youngest Black lawmaker elected to the Kentucky state legislature in nearly a
century. And he ran a close contest for the Democratic nomination to challenge – ultimately
unsuccessfully – the Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell’s seat in the November
election. Barack Obama criticizes ‘Defund the Police’ slogan but faces backlash, The Guardian.:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/02/barack-obama-criticizes-defund-the-police-
slogan-backlash
xl The Good Fight recap: ‘Day 436.’ EW.: https://ew.com/recap/the-good-fight-season-2-
episode-5/
xli In case your memory is a little foggy, the Mosbys have emerged as one of the most prominent
political couples in Baltimore over the last 18 months of upheaval. Nick represents the City
Council district where a 25-year-old resident, Freddie Gray, was arrested in April 2015 and
where protests over his death turned to incendiary violence. Marilyn is the state’s attorney who,
in the midst of that unrest, took to the steps of the War Memorial downtown, facing City Hall, to
announce that she was filing criminal charges against six police officers over Gray’s death.
Baltimore vs. Marilyn Mosby, The New York Times.:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/magazine/marilyn-mosby-freddie-gray-baltimore.html
W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 29
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Home
Explore
In the Matter of Teresa Sheehan v City & County of San Francisco - #Americans with Disabilities (ADA) - #Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W
View in Fullscreen
The Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL) has filed an appeal with the National Council on Disability (NCD) for their failure to make clear [1] how they became informed about the arrest of Teresa Sheehan on August 07th 2008; [2] the discussions they have had with the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the David Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law before filing an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of Teresa Sheehan in the matter of City and Country of San Francisco v Teresa Sheehan; [3] the discussions they have had with the APA, the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the David Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law since the adverse court determination in the matter of City and County of San Francisco v Teresa Sheehan.
For your information (FYI), Teresa Sheehan was a 56 (fifty-six) year-old-woman at the time of her suspicious August 07th 2008 arrest in San Francisco, California. In the judgment of the AACL, the arrest of Teresa Sheehan was effectuated without probable cause and in very clear violation of her 4th (Fourth) Amendment Rights. The circumstances leading up to Teresa Sheehan arrest are very similar to those which led to the shooting of Sean Moore (in June 2011) and Freddie Gray (in April 2015). The AACL regrets the very chilling effect created by the United States Supreme Court when they ultimately rejected the arguments presented by the National Council on Disability (NCD) et al on behalf of Teresa Sheehan. As you may be aware, the NCD has not since February 17th 2015 filed an Amicus Curiae brief in a court of law as a direct consequence of police use of excessive force against a person with a disability (PWD). For very obvious reasons, the AACL finds this to be very regrettable. The AACL unequivocally denounces discrimination on the bases of gender, racial background, sexual orientation, national origin, religious affiliation and/or disability. The AACL is supportive of Congressional efforts to enact into law similar legislation to the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act because of the societal harm caused by qualified immunity. The AACL is not of the position that law enforcement officers should be held unaccountable (in a court of law) when they are witnessed using excessive force and/or displaying other inappropriate conduct (for which the civilian population would be punished for).
Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.
W (AACL)
Michael A. Ayele
Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist
Audio-Visual Media Analyst
Anti-Propaganda Journalist
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
In the Matter of Teresa Sheehan v City & County of San Francisco - #Americans with Disabilities (ADA) - #Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W
- 1 - 40
Pages: