DOJ Files Statement of Interest in BLH Challenge to City's Use of Police as First Responders to Mental Health Crises
New York, NY – October 4, 2024 – The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Statement of Interest in a lawsuit filed by New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI), Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, A&O Shearman LLP, and Marashi Legal, in the Southern District of New York against New York City and Mayor Eric Adams to end the City’s discrimination against people with mental disabilities by dispatching police officers as first responders to mental health crises. The litigation is brought by advocates for disability rights as part of a long, hard-fought campaign to transform the response the City provides when people experiencing mental health crises need help.
The DOJ’s filing urges the Court to look at the City’s emergency response system as a whole and the way it singles out people with mental disabilities for police intervention when others receive necessary health care. In the litigation, the City continues to defend its discriminatory 911 response system despite the DOJ having weighed in on litigation in Washington D.C. and Jefferson Parish, Louisiana challenging the use of police as first responders when someone is experiencing a mental health crisis.
“The Department of Justice’s involvement underscores the serious implications of allowing New York City, along with other communities across the country, to continue treating individuals experiencing mental health crises as if they were criminals,” said Marinda van Dalen, Director of Litigation at NYLPI.
“The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other disability laws were enacted to ensure that people with disabilities are treated equally and have the same access to government programs and services. New York City’s police response to 911 mental health calls denies these rights to people with mental disabilities,” said Luna Droubi, partner at Beldock Levine. “We are thrilled that the United States filed a statement to assist the court in evaluating the important legal issues raised in this case. This discriminatory treatment must end.”
“Everyone in NYC deserves emergency health response,” said Jenny Marashi of Marashi Legal.
Community Access, National Alliance on Mental Illness of New York City, Inc. (NAMI-NYC), Correct Crisis Intervention Today – NYC (CCIT-NYC), and Voices of Community Activists and Leaders New York (VOCAL) united forces in this ground breaking lawsuit against the City.
Currently, when the City receives requests for health emergencies, health care providers are sent. The exception is when there is a mental health emergency. In these situations, police arrive and typically escalate the problem, too frequently with deadly results. For example, this spring, police officers in Queens fatally shot Win Rozario, a 19-year-old, while he was experiencing a mental health crisis for which he had called 911 for help.
“When someone is experiencing a mental health crisis, they should be met by compassionate, well-trained mental health professionals—not police officers, whose involvement can too often escalate to excessive or even lethal force,” said Council Member Sandy Nurse, Chair of the New York City Council’s Committee on Criminal Justice. “We need proper oversight and accountability in how our city handles crisis response. I commend the Department of Justice for submitting a statement of interest in this lawsuit as we strive for justice and move away from the criminalization of mental health emergencies.”
The DOJ’s statement squarely rejects the position taken by the City in the litigation. The City has asked the Court to look at the NYPD’s response to mental health calls very narrowly, ignoring that all other people in New York who need help for a health problem actually receive health care instead of police officers at their door. The DOJ says that the disability laws entitle people with mental disabilities to have equal opportunity to access the same emergency response services available to the general public.
You can find more information here: Baerga et. al v. City of New York, et. al, 21-CV-05762 (S.D.N.Y)
Contact:
