Douglas Duane Bahl v. City of St. Paul
695 F.3d 778
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Bahl is deaf and uses ASL; he has a teaching/academic background and relies on interpreters for communication.
- On Nov. 17, 2006, Bahl was stopped for running a red light; officer Bobrowski used gestures and limited writing during the stop.
- Bahl asked for writing as an aid but no interpreter was provided; he was restrained and transported to Regions Hospital.
- A typewritten charge statement was prepared; Bahl later sought an interpreter, and the City failed to provide one at the post-stop interview.
- Bahl sued the City in state court alleging ADA/504/MHRA discrimination and negligence; the district court granted summary judgment to the City; the appeal followed.
- The panel affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings on selected issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether traffic-stop actions denied meaningful access to services | Bahl; City failed to provide effective communication | City; exigent circumstances justify gestures/writing | Affirmed summary judgment on traffic-stop issue |
| Whether the charge statement provided meaningful notice to Bahl | Bahl received insufficient access | Statement, by writing, satisfied primary request | Affirmed district court; meaningful access found via written statement |
| Whether post-arrest interview was a covered ADA service to which ADA applies | ADA covers custodial interrogation as a service; cost not a bar | Post-arrest interview not a required service; no clear obligation | Remanded for factual development; material facts exist on whether interview commenced and was halted due to accessibility concerns |
| Whether vicarious official immunity bars MHRA claims for the post-arrest interview | Immunity not available where policies are inadequate or malice shown | Discretionary actions with immunity; policy defects irrelevant | Reverse district court on post-arrest interview immunity; policy deficiencies can defeat immunity |
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 611.32 negligence per se claim survives | ASL primary language; interpreter required under statute | Written communication sufficient; no disabled in communication | Affirmed district court; charge notice provided meaningful access; no interpreter duty shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Loye v. County of Dakota, 625 F.3d 494 (8th Cir. 2010) (meaningful access may be achieved without an interpreter depending on circumstances)
- Bircoll v. Miami-Dade County, 480 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 2007) (exigencies of stop can justify not providing writing interpreter)
- Seremeth v. Board of County Com’rs Frederick County, 673 F.3d 333 (4th Cir. 2012) (Title II applies to actions by public entities; interpreters may be required)
- Tucker v. Tennessee, 539 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2009) (courts recognize need for flexible accommodations in law enforcement contexts)
- Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (absence of procedures can defeat immunity; policy guidance matters)
- Spring Lake Park School Dist. No. 16, 592 N.W.2d 870 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (lack of security policy can defeat vicarious immunity)