Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading content…
Loading…
Transcript

Sheehan V. San Francisco

-Mentally Ill

-Threatened her case worker

-Case worker called a 5150 Hold

-Police officers entered

-Officers retreated to regroup

-Officers entered a second time and used deadly force

Sheehan V. San Franscisco

Defensive Argument

-Officers responded to training for exigent circumstance

-Officers provided reasonable chance for compliance

-Officers enlisted non-deadly force

-Officers waited until deadly force was necessary

-ADA does not apply to exigent circumstances (Like 4th Amendment)

Sheehan V. San Francisco

-Officers violated 4th amendment by CREATING EXIGENCY

-Officers had fair knowledge of her disability but did not respect her ADA needs

Sheehan Argument

Sheehan V. San Francisco

Court Rulings

Lower court:

-ADA did NOT apply

-did NOT violate 4th amendment

-Acted appropriately given exigent circumstance situation

Court of Appeals:

-ADA DID Apply (in part - left to Jury)

-DID violate 4th amendment

-were NOT subject to qualified immunity

Supreme Court:

-ADA DID Apply

-Officers did NOT violate 4th amendment with second entry

Sheehan V. San Francisco

-9th court offered blatantly anti LEO ruling:

"...attempted to help a mentally ill woman who needed medical evaluation and treatment but wound up shooting and nearly killing her instead."

-Respond to training

Lasting Impact

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi