This is being provided in a rough-draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
EVE HILL: All right. Hi, everybody. I think it's time to get started. It's 10 minutes after time to get started. So you're in the session on using the ADA to bring justice to the criminal system. And there are supposed to be three of us and I'm sad to tell you there will only be two. Catherine Hanssens woke up sick today and isn't able to make it. I'll do my best to sub in a little bit for her but will inadequate for the task. I'm Eve Hill, I'm a partner at Brown Goldstein & Levy and a co-founder of the inclusive strategic arm of the firm.
I'm also general counsel of the National Federation of the Blind. Until January 1, 2017, I was a deputy assistant attorney general in the civil rights division. I have been doing disability rights work for 30 years and that number blows my mind. And I've been working at the intersections of criminal law and the ADA since my time at the Justice Department where we were working on guidance and other approaches between Olmstead integration law and the ADA and criminal justice systems. I use she/her pronouns and I'm a white woman with reddish hair and you don't care what I'm wearing. [ Laughter ] But it's fabulous.
Catherine Hanssens who's unable to be with us today, you can imagine Audrey Hepburn, is founder for the Center for HIV Law and Policy and she's worked on legal issues since 1984 through community organizing and policy advocacy and CHLQ is the first organization in the United States to challenge and organize against state and federal laws that rely on HIV status as a basis for criminal liability. So that's what we were talking about with her today. And my partner, Kobie Flowers, to my right, has over 20 years of trial experience having litigated cases in federal and state courts across the United States and internationally in the military commission at Guantanamo Bay.
Federal government as a civil rights prosecutor and fighting the government as an assistant public defender. So he's on both sides. Only on one side now, on my side. He's an extraordinary trial lawyer, I will tell you. And has been was a civil rights prosecutor at the Justice Department for four years where he specialized in the prosecution of police brutality cases which has in part led to what we do now. And we worked together on a number of these things. So. Hi, I'm Catherine Hanssens. I'm not. This slight is highlighting the state criminal laws that criminalize or increase the criminal penalties for people with HIV. And 30 states still have HIV specific specific criminal increase of penalties for people with HIV. 30. Kind of ridiculous.
So CHLP has been challenging these laws in a variety of ways and has educated with and advocated against or to state legislators about, for example, the facts about how HIV really spreads, which we know now. And it does not spread in a number of the ways that these laws criminalize. So these laws punish people, they don't prevent infection. As a result some states at least have changed or eliminated their HIV specific criminal laws. Texas, believe it or not, was the first state to repeal its HIV specific criminal law back in 1994. But, I know
ATTENDEE: A mistake we'll never make again.
EVE HILL: You didn't really make it this time. But people are still being charged for aggravated assault and attempted murder for interactions that not be criminal but for their HIV status. Most recently in 2022 New Jersey repealed its felony specific HIV law and Georgia added an intent requirement to its prosecution of sex workers with HIV. Stopped prosecuting sharing needles, giving blood and stopped making spitting or throwing bodily fluids a felony. So narrowed down things that it will prosecute for people who have HIV. But the prosecutions of HIV specific criminal laws, when there's essentially no risk of transmission, for example, when the person is nontransmissible, is also contrary to the ADA. And that's something CHLP has been exploring.
This is just like refusing dental treatment was against the ADA. Because there's no scientific basis for the additional penalty, this is not preventing transmission in any way. So CHLP has filed complaints with the justice department regarding several states that criminalize non transmission behavior for people who have HIV. And we're waiting impatiently for the justice department to act on this. So that's all I can do to substitute for Catherine. And I will now turn it over to Kobie to talk about using the ADA to avoid police interactions.
KOBIE FLOWERS: All right. Thank you so much, Eve. I want this to be as interactive as much as we can. As I'm talking if you all have questions, raise your hands. Make yourselves seen and we'll take them in real time. I know we have some time reserved for questions, but I want this to be a lively discussion. All right. The ADA and it's affect with police misconduct. I want to start my remarks by asking by a show of hands how many of you are aware that this year, in 2023, we are 50 years into the era of mass incarceration. How many people knew that? I shouldn't be surprised.
EVE HILL: You told me last week.
[ Laughter ]
KOBIE FLOWERS: The ADA is one very, very real tool to kind of end our country's addiction to mass incarceration. And we're going to talk about that through the Gary Montgomery case that Eve and I are litigating in the District of Columbia. That's the first big point. I've got three. Second big picture point. The ADA, when I say ADA I'm including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act but for our discussion just saying ADA to keep things moving. The ADA literally, when used effectively, saves lives. It saves lives. We're going to talk about that in our litigation concern the Ryan LeRoux case, it's a case here in Montgomery County. And the third I think very, very powerful aspect of the Americans with Disabilities Act, is that when you are talking about how to deal with police misconduct, the ADA is arguably more powerful than 42US C section 1983.
Which is what is typically used by most plaintiffs lawyers and civil rights lawyers like Eve and myself when we're dealing with police misconduct. So let's dig a little deeper. Mass incarceration and the ADA. What I want to do, Eve, is start with the Gary Montgomery slide if we could. Okay. So this is a case concerning a man by the name of Gary Montgomery. Gary Montgomery was a homeless person in Washington, DC. Gary Montgomery also suffered, unfortunately, from schizophrenia. On February 2nd of 2012, a person by the name of Deoni Jones was brutally murdered at a bus stop. On February 4, 2012, Gary Montgomery was arrested, taken down to the precinct in DC.
And he was interrogated by Brian Wise and Hassan Nasir. Gary Montgomery, it's difficult to tell on the slide here, but he is the African American man who's sitting to the furthest to the left. He's confronted to his right by DC homicide Detective Brian Wise and then to Gary Montgomery's left is a homicide detective by the name of Hassan Nasir. We brought in Gary Montgomery to ask him about the death of Deoni Jones. We had some information that he was in the area. They also had information that the assailant had been injured. They had information that the assailant was African American. So with that information, they brought in Gary Montgomery on February 4, 2012, and they interrogated him for hours. And the only question they wanted to know was who killed Deoni Jones at the bus stop in Washington, DC.
And very early on, these two officers knew that Gary Montgomery was suffering from some type of mental health problem. How did they know? Brian Wise and the officer who's sitting to Gary Montgomery's right, asked Gary Montgomery a simple question. Officer Wise asked the following: Tell me what happened at the bus stop. This is Gary Montgomery's response: In the process we're going, this whole man, you know, I would have been stopped right there, you know, by the decency, you know. They know this I did, you know, they honestly, you know, because I'm come, you know, come across things you know, in in that order um the outcome pretty timely though man, I mean.
And he went on talking like this. Not for seconds, not for minutes, but for hours. And at no time did these police officers, homicide detectives no doubt, go get a mental health professional, go get someone trained in crisis intervention. They interrogated him and ultimately Gary Montgomery, in the throes of his mental health issues, confessed to killing Deoni Jones. It didn't stop there. They took Gary Montgomery from this police precinct, put him in the back of a police car. Took him out to the scene of the crime where he confessed again. But it didn't stop there.
They brought Gary Montgomery back on February the 102012. They interrogated him again. And he admitted again that he killed Deoni Jones. So fast forward, he gets charged with murder. He's represented by the very talented public defender in Washington, DC. But all the while, that his case is pending, Gary Montgomery is kept incarcerated in a mental health facility, St. Elizabeth's in Washington, DC, for those of you who know St. Elizabeth's, it's a difficult place. And he stays there, pending his trial. For five and a half years. Ultimately, ultimately, the public defenders are able to try the murder case and they get an acquittal. But that's after five and a half years of sitting in a cage when he would not have to sit in a cage, had he just been accommodated during that interrogation.
EVE HILL: Tell them about the video.
KOBIE FLOWERS: As Eve said, there's a video. Why don't you tell them about the video. The video is devastating.
EVE HILL: There's the video of him talking to himself every time they leave the room he's talking to himself or talking to himself or talking to the people he thinks are there. But the other video is the video of the actual assailant running away from the scene. What Gary is doing in this picture is showing them a very large wound on his leg that could not allow him to run away from a scene. They have some clothing from the actual assailant. Not the clothing he's wearing, not any clothing that he owns. All this stuff is put to the side because they found the guy that they're going to make the defendant in this case.
KOBIE FLOWERS: Absolutely. And just to continue. It was easy, right? Because this person had a disability. And they didn't accommodate him. What would an accommodation have looked like in the interrogation facility here? Get him a social worker trained with dealing with mental health issues. Get him a psychiatrist, a psychologist. How about getting him a lawyer? Any one of these steps they could have taken. And what's sad is that there was a policy in effect at the time that said hey, when you see someone who is dealing with a mental health crisis, you need to take steps to get the crisis intervention team involved. They didn't do that.
What is had they done that, confident Gary Montgomery would have been able to speak up for himself through either his mental health professional, or through his lawyer, and say hey, I didn't kill Deoni Jones. And Gary Montgomery would not have been incarcerated for five and a half years. So that's a very real example of how, if the ADA has been followed by the Metropolitan Police Department, at least one person would not have been mass incarcerated. Legally, ADA is more powerful than 42UCS section 1983. Well, before we had the case other really talented lawyers had the case and they did what other talented lawyers in this country do which is bring this type of case mainly under 42UCS section 1983. And the key argument there was, as eve had already mentioned, there was a lot of evidence pointing away from Gary Montgomery. And much of that evidence was not turned over.
So these really talented lawyers did what, again, really talented lawyers do. Which is bring a suit under 1983. One of their kind of theories was that fifth amendment 2 process violation. But remember, Gary Montgomery went to trial and he was acquitted. So there really is no we deal with materiality in the 5th amendment, the stuff that wasn't turned over wasn't material. It didn't matter because he was acquitted. So under section 1983, Title 42, you really don't have at least a winning cause of action. So we brought the case primarily under the ADA and Section 504. And James in the crowd today did so much of the heavy lifting as far as the legal research and writing and getting us through the discovery period and process. And ultimately in May of last year, federal district judge John D. Bates issued an opinion holding the district liable under ADA and under Statute 504.
We got the summary judgment. So he got past summary judgment, and now we're in this they filed a motion to reconsider. But the point is simple is that under the ADA, which was used well at least to get pass the summary judgment stage. Had the ADA been followed back in 2012, I'm confident Gary Montgomery would not have sat in a psychiatric facility for five and a half years. And the other take home point is again, you can't really bring this case under 42 USC section 1983, and be successful. So that's the Gary Montgomery story. I've got for you another story, Ryan LeRoux. Ryan LeRoux is the story of had the ADA been followed, this 21 year old African American male who suffered from depression, schizophrenia, and ADHD, he would be here with us today. But unfortunately in July of 2021, Ryan LeRoux went to this McDonald's here in Montgomery County. And he sat in the drive through for about an hour. Not moving, in his car. Not paying for his meal. The seat was reclined and he had his headphones on.
And McDonald's employees saw this. And they called 911. They called 911 for Montgomery County and they told 911 there's a man who is, quote, acting crazy. Their words, not mine. But we're not in danger. They call 911 that evening at about 9:12 p.m. And when the dispatcher heard this call, about this person sitting in the car in the drive through for a significant period of time, but not a danger. Acting crazy but not a danger. The dispatcher put this call kind of low in the queue of priorities. And a Montgomery police officer doesn't show up for another hour and 12 minutes. At 10:28. And this Montgomery County police officer is named Brooks Inman. And Brooks Inman shows up at McDonald's and sees Ryan LeRoux in the car, seat reclined, on his headset, his headphones were on his head. The officer sees something else in the passenger seat. He sees a gun. Immediately the officer pulls out his gun, points it at Ryan LeRoux, and tells him to get the fuck out of the car, his words not mine. And starts to cuss at Ryan LeRoux and really escalates the situation. The next thing that Officer Brooks Inman does he alerts his fellow police officers. As I said officer Inman arrived on the scene an hour and 12 minutes after Ryan LeRoux had been spotted on the scene.
He calls in other officers at about 10:38. And Officer John, Officer Sara vine and Officer Roman Schmuck all show up. Along with about 13 other Montgomery County police officers. And they surround Ryan LaRue's car. As you can see there. They all have their guns pointed. And they've got, you can't see it in the picture there, but they've got stop sticks there. There are also officers inside the McDonald's where the drive through window is. So he's completely surrounded. And while he's completely surrounded, what do you all think Ryan LeRoux is doing? Listen to go his headphones. Doing anything. Doesn't touch the gun at all. They sit there for an hour and 50 minutes, telling him to come out. Blaring lights into the car and he just sits there. At no time did the 17 officers that were there call a crisis intervention team, even though Montgomery county has a crisis invention team.
And for those of you that don't know, crisis intervention teams are simply officers, and oftentimes medical professionals who are skilled in dealing with people in mental health crises. They're there for an hour and 50 minutes. No crisis intervention team is called. And again, Montgomery County prides itself as being a progressive count. Spends money on these things. Not using these things. Not only did the 17 officers fail to call the crisis intervention team, they also failed to call another one of these teams that's supposed to help out, a mobile crisis team. So they sit there for an hour and 50 minutes, guns pointed, blaring lights and on their megaphones trying to get Ryan LeRoux to come out the car. He doesn't. He simply sits there.
What do folks think happens next? After an hour and 50 minutes. You all know the story. They shoot him. They shoot him, because they say he leaned up from his reclined position, and he grabbed the gun with his right hand. But as Eve knows and the video shows, it's unclear whether he had a gun in his hand or not. And it is undisputed by us and by them that Ryan LeRoux is left handed. And in the video undisputed he raises his right hand. Had these officers simply called a crisis intervention team, had they tried to deescalate the situation, Ryan LeRoux would be here today. Ryan LeRoux is a classic example of how the ADA, if it's followed, saves lives. A lot of talented civil rights lawyers would bring this exact case under 42 USC Section 1983. And the theory would be under a 4th Amendment theory, right? That these officers used excessive force, they were unreasonable, and that's why they should be held liable in the county.
We did not bring this case under Title 42 Section 1983, because we know that ultimately when there's a gun there, these officers are going to defend themselves by saying hey they were afraid. Whether Ryan LeRoux picked up the gun or not, whether Ryan LeRoux was left handed or right handed, they're going to say they were afraid. That is going to be a difficult case to win under section 1983. And then having tried cases against police officers, any time a police officer walks into a courtroom, raises his hand, looks at that jury and says I may have violated policy, but I was afraid that night, I was trying to go home to see my wife and my daughter and I didn't commit a crime. That officer, whether it's a criminal or civil case, typically persuades the jury. We brought this case under the ADA because that carves out that whole defense. That you were afraid, that you did whatever you thought was reasonable at that time.
We can't second guess that. All of that 1983 jurisprudence is stripped from the case. The only question the county has to answer is did they know that this person had a disability, number one. And number two, did you accommodate it. And who sits in a drive through at McDonald's for hours, surrounded by police officers who are yelling expletives at them and telling them to get out the car. Who sits in that situation and something is not going on?
ATTENDEE: Four days earlier.
KOBIE FLOWERS: There's a lot of other facts too. But they certainly knew about Ryan LeRoux because they had dealt with him four days earlier, as Eve kind of alludes to, in a hotel room. Where he overstayed his stay there and the police came and were able to take him out of that hotel room with no incident. I don't know how deep into the facts you want to go. But also when they're there, the police knew exactly who Ryan LeRoux was. Because they ran his plates. They were able to get his cell phone, and they called him. So if you're able to run the plates and get his cell phone, have that much information on him, then surely you could have had information four days ago without issue.
So the other, had the ADA been followed by Montgomery County, Ryan LeRoux would be here. The ADA saves lives. The other piece which is incredibly important about the ADA versus Section 1983 is, as we all know, there is qualified immunity when you're dealing with section 1983. With the ADA do we have qualified immunity?
EVE HILL: The officers do.
KOBIE FLOWERS: It's not qualified. They have immunity, but it's a couple of things.
EVE HILL: The county does.
KOBIE FLOWERS: Exactly. And we've only sued the county. The point is simple when you're dealing with 1983, you're going to be dealing with qualified immunity just as a matter of course. And particularly when you're dealing with qualified immunity with section 1983, it's one of those few issues that allows for an interlocutory appeal. And if you carve that 1983 stuff out of your case, you carve out the narrative of these police officers being very, very afraid, you also carve out the issues of dealing with qualified immunity. And then you know, if you lose that should go up to the appellate court. In the ADA world you just don't have that. So that's the Ryan LeRoux case, again, a great example of if the ADA had been followed back in 2021, Ryan LeRoux would still be here. And because we brought this ADA case, we don't have to deal with things like what happens under Section 983E and what just happened?
Just this week. We got passed a motion to dismiss. So we're moving in the right direction. I should also mention in the Ryan LeRoux case. The Justice Department, Disability Rights Section, filed a statement of interest and one of the very talented lawyers Nita Paul is here. And in my view, we should have gotten past the motion to dismiss months ago. Because we had such a strong ally in the Justice Department. I can tell you when I was back in the Justice Department many years ago, 20 years ago, we worked really, really hard to take a lot of these cases that couldn't be prosecuted criminally, and have them dealt with through the ADA. And I can tell you 20 years ago, it just did not happen. So I can't tell you how delighted and heartened and encouraged I am that now in 2023 the justice department is really moving with some focus and using the ADA in a more aggressive way and seeing how powerful ADA is. So, what am I leaving out?
EVE HILL: You're good. I'm next. So the other way to look at avoiding police involvement. You could look at all these things just within the police, within the 911 and the criminal system. But the other way to look at it is from an Olmstead communications lens. What ends up with Ryan LeRoux was he didn't have access, even the four days ago when he was in the hotel room or the month ago when he was walking down the street naked, clearly did not have access to mental health treatment services that would serve him when he needed services. So the other way of looking at these kind of issues is at the mental health system and the other healthcare systems that keep people from interacting with the police.
So one of the ways that too often jails and prisons are the new institutions for people with mental health conditions and substance use disorders, by the way. And like other institutions, they're expensive and they're not very good at their job. And they're segregated from the community. And too often they're being used because a crime has been committed, but too often it's not actually a crime. It's a status crime, it's a nuisance crime. The person is living on the streets, that's the crime. The person is loitering that's the crime.
KOBIE FLOWERS: With Ryan LeRoux, the crime was trespassing.
EVE HILL: Right. So in my consulting work, I get to deal with this front end. And pushing the front end further and further away from the police. So I worked with Monroe County, Indiana who found that its jail was overcrowded and it was overcrowded with a lot of people with mental illness and substance use disorders. And they wanted to figure out if there were ways to reduce the overcrowding and not have to build a new jail. So there's a pile of money on one side and I'm thinking let's use the pile of money to do something else to empty that jail. So that was a real opportunity, and I worked with them to do a really systemic review. This is the right one. To do a really systemic review of their mental health and SUD treatment systems. Their crisis, their housing, their employment systems. All the pieces that can keep people from interactions with police.
And use what's called the sequential intercept model, which identifies a set of intercept points at which you can divert someone off the path way to criminal interaction. So intercept 1 is 911. Intercept 0 is any sort of mobile crisis, mental health crisis system that's not related to the criminal system. Intercept 1 is 911 and local and law enforcement diversion. Intercept 2 is post duress and initial detention and court appearances. Intercept 3 is courts and jails. Both at points which you can divert people or prepare people for reentry and not coming back. Intercept 4 is reentry and intercept 5 is corrections or probation and parole. So all of those things can get people off the pipeline to incarceration.
And I added another intercept point, because I'm pushing it back further and further from the entrance to the jail, which is your community health and substance use disorder treatment systems. So before you even get to a crisis, home crises can we prevent from happening.
The report was not a short report. It was 80 something pages long and I'm sure they read every word of it. They're actually working now to start implementing the things. Things like implementing a fuse program for frequent users. You identify the frequent users and you get them what they need. And that will get them really in depth services. Once you can provide services in a timely way, where and when people need them, you can serve the people who needless much more easily. Then expanding telepsychiatry. This is a way of making mobile crisis intervention and mobile precrisis intervention much easier if you can do it through telehealth instead of having to have a person come out and show up.
Or have a person in a mental health crisis come to you on the bus, in the middle of the night. None of this works. We might understand why none of this works. Recommend they expand their app services, expand their scattered site supportive housing. They had project based housing but very little scattered site and increase supportive employment because it keeps people from having crises. And subsidizing nonmedical emergency transportation. So people can get to appointments without having to be in a crisis. And expanding public transportation options. There was one bus that ran through town and at the end of the route was mental health service and it was open during weekdays 9:00 to 5:00 and the bus didn't run on weekends. There was just no way to get these things to happen. Then a recommended expanding their mobile crisis services creating a 24/7 walk in crisis center.
Enhancing their nonlaw enforcement lines and training 911 dispatchers. This comes up in LeRoux. Where you get a low priority call, nothing dangerous is happening but someone is acting like crazy, you can send nonlaw enforcement officers to meet that need. Also ensuring all your law enforcement officers were trained about what the walk in crisis center did, and that they must use it. Not that he might use it, not well it's there we can really ignore it, but that they really need to use it. And training them on crisis intervention. And to create a crisis intervention team to actually be used. Improving screening tools at the jail. And increasing jail mental health services so that people can be prepared for reentry or be prepared, you have to be stable before you can go for your diversion course, believe it or not. You can't get diverted for having a mental illness unless you're essentially recovered. It's very helpful. With all the services that you can get in the jail.
And obviously as I'm alluding to, reducing barriers to participation in the problem solving courts. So including the mental health court. Those courts require you to plead guilty to the offense that you were charged with in order to get into the diversion court. And then if you got through two years of a lot of oversight and checking in and blood tests and all this stuff, urine tests, all this stuff, then it could be taken off your record. But otherwise you pled guilty to something that you might actually do time served for, without having to go through two years, that you might actually have used your mental illness as a defense to, there are any number of ways that this really discourages people from participating in the diversion courts and really reduces graduation rates from the diversion courts and prevents them from being as successful as they should be. And puts people in somewhat of a worse position that they ought to be.
I wish more people would do it that way, but if they can't do it, we send them over to Kobie and he'll do it the hard way. And lately, I've been honored to work with the National Federation of the Blind and we're working on using the ADA in prison. When you're in prison, particularly for people with well, for people with all kinds of disabilities, but we've been working on obviously prisoners who are blind, I know a lot of people who have been doing fantastic work on behalf of prisoners who are Deaf as well. So BGL, working with the NFB and affiliates and members has been worked with P&A organizations and others to bring ADA challenges to the conditions in state and local jails and prisons. Insofar, Maryland, Colorado, Virginia, now Tennessee and Maryland again. It just keeps coming back. So blind prisoners often have no access to written information, and a lot happens in writing in prison. Including the facility handbook where they tell you what the rules are.
The forms for things like grievances have to be submitted in writing. With a little box this big. And if you exceed the little box, your grievance will be denied. We won't even read it because it exceeded the little box. Commissary orders, medical appointments, information about any kind of programs that are happening are all in writing. Sometimes they're posted on a little corkboard in very small print. Other times they're available to everyone except for the blind people. And our blind prisoners are unable to read their mail. Not just family mail, but legal mail. And they're generally denied any access to the employment, vocational or educational programming because assumptions of about what blind people can't do, always what they can't do. There are no high expectations for what they can do. And because of the inaccessibility of the materials and the educational program. Try getting a GED if you're a blind guy in prison. And yet that purports to be the thing that prisons try to get people come out with.
Blind people are sometimes denied White Canes. Most are devoid any kind of train to go get around prison themselves and as a result they have to rely on walkers or helpers, other inmates who walk them around prison. And if the other inmate sometimes that other inmate it's their job. But they don't always want to do it. And sometimes it's not an official job. It's something you find a way to convince another inmate to do. Sometimes not a trustworthy inmate. Sometimes an expensive inmate. So relying on and often these helpers are well, always they're unqualified. And untrained. And very often they have to get paid through commissary items and other times they will exploit blind prisoners and their families and often they're incompetent at their jobs. Deadlines are missed, grievances are not written properly. It leads to a whole variety of disasters.
And some blind people have been denied treatment for their eye conditions such as cataract surgery. We have that going on now.
And all these situations are discrimination in violation of the ADA's effective communication requirement. In fact blind prisoners have a greater effective communication requirement arguably than other entities because the people live there and depend entirely on the institution for the assistive technology that they need. They're not going to be able to buy JAWS themselves. It's going to have to be provided. So assistive technology is available to help with all these things. To help blind prisoners read independently, write printed mail independently. Take notes, participate in correctional programs. Do it all privately and independently without relying on another inmate to help. And the big answer here is the laptops and tablets that are very often being rolled out to lots and lots, all nondisabled inmates, but as least should be rolled out to inmates with these disabilities.
Because that's the best way to provide the assistive technology, and to make the private and independent use of printed materials work in a seamless way. All other technology, we have Sara scanners, hand held scanners, digital recorders, printers it's a fascinating technology you may have heard of it. And giving these prisoners often who have lost their sight while in prison, orientation and mobility training. Because they haven't had it before. They don't know you're not born knowing how to use a white cane. So keep teaching them how to do these things. And then teaching the people who supervise the jobs, how to assume that a blind person can do the jobs. And how to accommodate them as you would in any other job in any other field in the rest of the world.
To let blind people do more than be the greeter in the cafeteria, or actually one blind person was assigned a job of pouring the hot water for his pod but then was told that was too dangerous a job for a blind person. He couldn't possibly do it. These are the jobs that people are, with disabilities are given. And they don't, number one, get you as much good time as you might be able to do. So blind people serve their whole time and they serve the longest possible type of time ever. Often without an audio book to read, without any classes to attend, without any programming to benefit from. So we've reached settlements in Maryland and Colorado and are litigating in Virginia and are preparing to litigate in Tennessee. And possibly Maryland. And Colorado is the best example of the remedies that we get.
And that involved two named plaintiffs. Our first case involved nine named plaintiffs. And just the named plaintiffs. We've learned a little bit since then that we'll take fewer named plaintiffs and an organizational plaintiff. So then we can get the benefit for all the inmates. We always get the benefit for all the inmates, but that we can definitely get the benefit for all the inmates without subjecting so many blind prisoners to the rigors of litigation. Depositions and so forth. So the relief in Colorado is not limited to the two named plaintiffs. It's available to all blind prisoners. Getting them to hire an expert to consult on evaluating the blind prisoners to find out what their level of expertise was in blindness skills and orientation mobility. Also to educate the prison about what assistive technology was available, what accommodations are available for all the jobs in the prison, they were going to provide laptops that are loaded with screen reader software, a typing teacher, audio book software, and the department's forms and rules, including their grievance forms, so that all those things would be fillable on the computer.
Printable on a printer in the pod. And for nonelectronic documents, there would be a SARA scanner also on the pods so that they could scan in other printed material. Provide digital recorders, handheld magnifiers, portable scanners, talking calculators, talking watches and headphones. At the cost of the Department of Corrections. You don't charge inmates with disabilities for the assistive technology that they're entitled to. And also providing blind prisoners with orientation materials in assistive formats ensuring they have access to every single job. That you cannot deny a blind prisoner access to a job unless they're a direct threat, and that they have access to every educational program that all the materials for all the educational programs will be provided in accessible format. This was the best part. They will have equal access to books, to the same extent as every other inmate has access to books. So they will find accessible audio books for the blind prisoners. They won't just rely on the national library service. They will go find them.
And then they will consider a person's blindness as a factor when deciding whether to single cell them, which is a big deal. Provide priority access to recreation and meals. Because too often the blind prisoners are slower to get from place to place, and miss out of meals and recreation. And then train everybody on staff, train the helpers, train the blind prisoners. Report to us because we love to hear back from our defendants. And have judicial enforcement. So we are only 2 minutes late. But we would be happy to take any questions until they get the hook. I don't know if we have a runner with the mic this trial.
KOBIE FLOWERS: I want to ask you in the case if there was evidence that the folks at McDonald's knew that Mr. LeRoux was had a disability and if so whether you were going after McDonald's. Show no mercy. It's a great question. Let me repeat it. Al asked whether there was evidence from the McDonald's workers about Mr. LaRue's mental health condition or crisis. Is that a fair restatement?
ATTENDEE: Yeah.
KOBIE FLOWERS: The answer is, from the little bit of evidence we have, yes. Because they saw him sitting in the drive through for about an hour of time before they even called. And when they called, as I said, they used the words that he was acting "crazy." But that he wasn't a danger. And so that's why the argument is, and we haven't done depositions yet. We just got past the motion to dismiss stage. The argument is that certainly the McDonald's worker knew that this guy was just not okay and just needed some help. And then Montgomery County knew that too because it took them an hour and 12 minutes to get there. They didn't rush there. And this was a 911 call. Great question. Other questions?
ATTENDEE: Yes. Kobie, your cases are damage cases. And so listening to this, I've been thinking about how you make a case for injunctive relief. Thinking about all those statistics out there that show if you're Deaf, you're five times more likely to get arrested. However many times more likely to have a violent encounter the same thing for almost all disabilities. And so is there a pattern in practice case of there to be made is one question. And I guess the second question is in the varies consent decrees that DOJ is negotiating, are they considering the ADA pattern and practice in fashioning consent decrees.
KOBIE FLOWERS: First off the injunctive relief. Our two particular cases are going to be tough because our clients are not alive. But it's a great thought, Dan, in how we get there. I don't have a solution, I don't have an answer to that. But it's the right thought. Eve, what do you think?
EVE HILL: I think that's right. It's hard to prove that they're going to be even alive plaintiffs, it would be hard to prove that they're going to get arrested. We have a lot of trouble with standing injunctive relief. But DOJ I think is taking this into account and Steve will be talking in other sessions and I hope they'll talk about that, and Louisville in particular.
KOBIE FLOWERS: Just tease it.
EVE HILL: The justice department recently came out with a letter of findings and consent decree in Louisville, Kentucky, about their police department, which started out as about race. But includes a substantial pieces on mental health and disability. And so I'm really looking forward to later discussions about how that worked and the great work that that represents.
KOBIE FLOWERS: Right. Just so everybody knows because so many people. Louisville is the Breonna Taylor case. They did a kick ass report. Other thoughts?
ATTENDEE: Hi. I'm Jean I used to work at BGO and at DOJ now and if you come to our session at 2:30 we can tell you more.
KOBIE FLOWERS: I hope that's on camera.
ATTENDEE: A different version of Dan's question about damages. So to me the ADA gets you around so many problems with 1983. But in the face of Cummings you're potentially facing a new problem with emotional distress usually being the largest category of damages. Like with Mr. Montgomery, he was unhoused, unemployed. So there's really nothing except the emotional distress. Maybe things have changed but I would love to hear your thoughts on how you're thinking about Cummings and overcoming that problem moving forward because 1983 has so many hurdles but damages isn't one of them which is what makes it so attractive.
KOBIE FLOWERS: Great, great question. As soon as Cummings came down, everybody was trying to figure out how it affects the ADA and obviously it was a 504 case. But we had one of these, I don't know. Very aggressive judges who, in the Gary Montgomery case, takes on Cummings and basically just says Cummings just came down, what is that going to do for your damages? You have no emotional damages. This guy was locked up for five years. What does that do for you. In what he did, Judge Bates I want to give him some credit because I think this is the right argument. He says even if we take Cummings and apply it to the ADA and we're just limited to crawl damages, contractual damages, loss of opportunity, that is the loss of opportunity for him to have accommodation to be able to express himself and he's being interrogated.
The loss of opportunity for him to have some dignity in that interrogation room. There's that query how big of the damage that is. Everybody will argue that's a small damage, we'll see what a jury thinks. That's essentially what Judge Bates says. We can't decide a summary judgment, that's certainly a call for the jury. The other kind of contractual damage is consequential damages. So the argument for Gary Montgomery, he did five years that he would not had done had he been accommodated so thanks con sequential damage. As everybody knows whether you can get cons sequential damages under Cummings we're trying to argue the best we got. Those are two avenues for damages in the ADA world. Eve?
EVE HILL: Steve? Your Indiana consulting work sounds interesting like a road map that others could potentially follow. Is that document public somewhere so we can take a look at it?
EVE HILL: It is public. I don't know exactly where it is on the Montgomery County, Indiana website. But it is a public document. And I can share it with you. We're going to talk a little about Louisville as well, The Arc of the United States and a couple of our chapters are doing some community work. Can you give me your name and who you're with?
ATTENDEE: I've Steve Gordon with the United States attorney's office in the Eastern District of Virginia and I coordinate our civil rights enforcement.
KOBIE FLOWERS: Do you remember a guy named Morris Partner out there? I was out there a long time ago. Good to see you.
EVE HILL: All right, thank you all.
[ Applause ]