[email protected]
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
EXCELLENT Based on 387 reviews sean thompson2024-09-06Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Just took the SRO course. What an absolute outstanding training!!! I am not an SRO and have not been one. But as the Captain I need to learn and understand as much as I can. This course is excellent to have a better understanding of the law and the SRO... Keep up the great work B2G!!!! Doug Wallace2024-08-29Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Good information provided on S&S James Scira2024-08-27Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training. I would recommend Blue to Gold training to members of LE. Nichalas Liddle2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I have had the pleasure of getting to watch some webinars from Blue to Gold and have enjoyed all the insights and knowledge that the instructors have. Good training for all of us in LE careers. Keep on with the good work yโall do. brian kinsley2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training, refreshers, topic introductions. I love the free webinars! It really helps when budgets are tight. Thank you!! Tim Crouch2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great, free webinars. Thank you. I love the attorney provided content for up to date and accurate information. Anthony Smith2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Awesome stuff!
Gifts & Gears
Mailing Address
Blue to Gold, LLC
12402 N Division St #119
Spokane, WA 99218
RESEARCH
Sheehan, a woman who suffered from mental illness, lived in a group home that accommodated such persons. Sheehanโs social worker became concerned about her deteriorating condition because Sheehan was not taking her medications. When the social worker entered Sheehanโs room, Sheehan told the social worker to get out. In addition, Sheehan told the social worker she had a knife and threatened to kill him. The social worker left Sheehanโs room, cleared the building of other residents and called the police to help him transport Sheehan to a mental health facility for an involuntary commitment for evaluation and treatment. When Officers Reynolds and Holder arrived, the social worker told them he had cleared the building of other residents. The social worker also told the officers the only way for Sheehan to leave her room was by using the main door, as the window in Sheehanโs room could not be used as a means of escape without a ladder. The officers then entered Sheehanโs room without a warrant to confirm the social workerโs assessment, and to take Sheehan into custody. When Sheehan saw the officers, she grabbed a knife and threatened to kill them, stating she did not wish to be taken to a mental health facility. The officers went back into the hallway and closed the door to Sheehanโs room. The officers called for back-up, but before other officers arrived, Reynolds and Holder drew their firearms and forced their way back into Sheehanโs room. After Sheehan threatened the officers with a knife, the officers shot Sheehan five or six times. Sheehan survived and sued the city and the officers, claiming the officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights by entering her room without a warrant and using excessive force. Sheehan also claimed the officers did not follow department training on how to deal with mentally ill subjects.
1. Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody.
2. Whether it was clearly established that even where an exception to the warrant requirement applied, an entry into a residence could be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment by reason of the anticipated resistance of an armed and violent suspect within.
1. The Supreme Court dismissed the first question presented because at oral argument the city did not argue the issue presented in the question. Instead of arguing that the ADA did not apply to enforcement actions by law enforcement officers, the city conceded that the ADA might apply to arrests. The city then argued that in this case, the officers were not required to provide Sheehan an accommodation under the ADA because of the threat she posed to the officers. Because the Supreme Court does not usually decide questions of law that were not presented to, and ruled upon by a lower court, it decided to dismiss the first question presented by the city.
2. No, it was not clearly established; therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
The court held the case law relied upon by the Ninth Circuit in denying the officers qualified immunity did not clearly establish that it was unreasonable for the officers to forcibly enter the home of an armed, mentally ill suspect who had been acting irrationally and threatening others when there was no objective need for immediate entry. In addition, even if the officers acted contrary to the training they received on how to deal with mentally ill subjects, the court held at the time of the incident is was not clearly established that the Fourth Amendment required the officers to accommodate Sheehanโs mental illness before attempting to arrest her.
575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1765 2015)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved