police department encounters many situations where effective communication with members of the public who are deaf or hard of hearing is including to critical,” “interviewing suspects prior and U.S. of Justice, Americans with Disabilities Act: arrest,” “interrogating arrestees.” Dep’t Title II Technical Assistance Manual Covering State and Local Government Programs and § II- 7.1000(B), illus. 3, at 3 (Nov. 1993 & Supp. 1994), available at . (A copy of this Services document is attached as Exhibit C to the Kennedy Decl. In II Technical Assistance”).) (“Title addition, 2006 guidance states that ADA affects virtually everything that officers and “[t]he including and U.S. of Justice, deputies do,” “arresting, booking, holding suspects.” Dep’t § I, Commonly Asked Questions About the Americans with Disabilities Act and Law Enforcement question 2 (Apr. 4, 2006). (A copy of this document is attached as Exhibit D to the Kennedy Decl. Because Congress expressly vested the Department with authority to Guidance”).) (“2006 implement the ADA through regulations and technical assistance, the Department’s interpretation of Title II must be accorded weight unless it is capricious, “controlling ‘arbitrary, or manifestly contrary to the 510 U.S. 317, 324 (1994) ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, statute.’” (quoting 467 U.S. at 844); 524 U.S. at 646 (recognizing that Chevron, see Bragdon, “the views are entitled to 151 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Johnson v. City of Saline, Department’s deference”); Cir. 1998) (granting deference to The conclusion Title II Technical Assistance). Department’s that Title II extends to all law enforcement activities follows from the text and history of the statute and definitively establishes that Title II applies to arrests. 2. Assertion that Arrests Do Not Fall Within the Scope of Title II Defendant’s Is Clearly Erroneous The Second Circuit has yet to address the question of whether Title II’s antidiscrimination mandate applies to arrests. 972 F. See Valanzuolo v. City of New Haven, Supp. 2d 263, 273 (D. Conn. 2013) (noting that the Second Circuit has not decided the issue);
police department encounters many situations where effective communication with members of the public who are deaf or hard of hearing is critical,” including “interviewing suspects prior to arrest,” and “interrogating arrestees.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Americans with Disabilities Act: Title II Technical Assistance Manual Covering State and Local Government Programs and Services § II- 7.1000(B), illus. 3, at 3 (Nov. 1993 & Supp. 1994), available at . (A copy of this document is attached as Exhibit C to the Kennedy Decl. (“Title II Technical Assistance”).) In addition, 2006 guidance states that “[t]he ADA affects virtually everything that officers and deputies do,” including “arresting, booking, and holding suspects.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Commonly Asked Questions About the Americans with Disabilities Act and Law Enforcement § I, question 2 (Apr. 4, 2006). (A copy of this document is attached as Exhibit D to the Kennedy Decl. (“2006 Guidance”).) Because Congress expressly vested the Department with authority to implement the ADA through regulations and technical assistance, the Department’s interpretation of Title II must be accorded “controlling weight unless it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.’” ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317, 324 (1994) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844); see Bragdon, 524 U.S. at 646 (recognizing that “the Department’s views are entitled to deference”); Johnson v. City of Saline, 151 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Cir. 1998) (granting deference to Title II Technical Assistance). The Department’s conclusion that Title II extends to all law enforcement activities follows from the text and history of the statute and definitively establishes that Title II applies to arrests. 2. Defendant’s Assertion that Arrests Do Not Fall Within the Scope of Title II Is Clearly Erroneous The Second Circuit has yet to address the question of whether Title II’s antidiscrimination mandate applies to arrests. See Valanzuolo v. City of New Haven, 972 F. Supp. 2d 263, 273 (D. Conn. 2013) (noting that the Second Circuit has not decided the issue);
williams_new-york_soi.docx