Skip to content
MYRIGHTZ
conduct

When You Cannot Comply

ADA Title II — an order you are physically unable to follow

Email

Every order in an encounter assumes a body that can carry it out. Step out of the vehicle assumes legs that hold weight. Put your hands behind your back assumes shoulders that rotate. Stop resisting assumes the person heard it. When the assumption is wrong, what happens next is often written up as refusal, and the law has a separate set of rules for that situation that most people have never heard of.

A police department is a public entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title II reaches the services, programs and activities of a state or local government, and a department of that government is covered by name.

  • A public entity must make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices or procedures where a modification is necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.
  • The limit on that duty is fundamental alteration: a modification is not required where it would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program or activity.
  • The other limit is direct threat, meaning a significant risk to health or safety that a reasonable modification cannot eliminate.
  • Where the two meet, courts weigh the circumstances. An accommodation that is obviously reasonable at a kerbside can be unreasonable in the middle of an emergency, and the same request can come out differently for that reason alone.

Communication is its own rule rather than a subcategory of the first one. A public entity must take appropriate steps to ensure that communication with a person with a disability is as effective as communication with anyone else, and must furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where they are needed for an equal opportunity to participate.

  • In deciding what aid or service is needed, the entity must give primary consideration to what the person with the disability asks for.
  • What counts as effective varies with the method the person uses, with the nature, length and complexity of what is being communicated, and with the context it happens in.
  • An aid or service has to arrive in an accessible format, in a timely way, and in a way that protects the person's privacy and independence.
  • Writing notes back and forth can be effective for a short exchange and ineffective for a long or complicated one. The regulation makes the length and complexity part of the test rather than leaving it to preference.
Whether any of this applies during an arrest is genuinely unresolved. The Supreme Court took that exact question in San Francisco v. Sheehan and then dismissed it as improvidently granted, deciding only the excessive force claim and leaving the Title II question untouched. The Sixth Circuit, which covers Ohio, was asked the same question in Roell v. Hamilton County and declined to answer it, assuming for argument that Title II applied and resolving the case on whether the accommodation sought was reasonable against public safety. So in Ohio there is no settled answer to whether an arrest is a service, program or activity at all, and the circuits have not agreed.

The interpreter statute people reach for is narrower than its reputation. Ohio requires a court to appoint a qualified interpreter where a party or a witness cannot readily understand or communicate because of a hearing, speech or other impairment, and the interpreter takes an oath before starting. That is a rule about a legal proceeding. It is not a roadside rule, and nothing in it appoints anyone at the side of a road.

Two duties can point in opposite directions at the same moment. Refusing a lawful order can be its own offence, and the sections on obstructing and on failure to comply set out what each one requires. Being unable to follow an order is not the same as refusing it, but whether an officer can tell the difference in the moment is a question of fact that gets decided later by someone who was not there. Both things are true at once, and this site states them both rather than resolving the tension that exists in the law itself.

Title II is enforced through complaints and civil suits after the fact, not at the scene. Nothing in this section is a rule an officer applies on the spot, and how any of it lands on a specific encounter is a question for a licensed Ohio attorney.

Sources for this section (10)
  1. 42 U.S.C. 12132 — Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which covers the services, programs and activities of a public entity
  2. 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7) — Reasonable modifications to policies, practices or procedures, and the fundamental alteration limit
  3. 42 U.S.C. 12131 — Definition of a public entity under Title II, which includes any department or agency of a state or local government
  4. 28 C.F.R. 35.139 — Direct threat, and when a modification is not required
  5. 28 C.F.R. 35.160 — Effective communication, auxiliary aids and services, and primary consideration for what the person asks for
  6. San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600 (2015) — The Supreme Court took the question of whether Title II applies to arrests and then dismissed that part as improvidently granted, deciding only the Fourth Amendment claim
  7. Roell v. Hamilton County, 870 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2017) — Sixth Circuit, covering Ohio, declined to decide whether Title II reaches an arrest and resolved the case on whether the accommodation sought was reasonable
  8. ORC 2311.14 — Appointment of a qualified interpreter in a legal proceeding
  9. ORC 2921.31 — Obstructing official business
  10. ORC 2921.331 — Failure to comply with order or signal of police officer

Legal information, not legal advice. Verified as of September 2026. Talk to a licensed Ohio attorney about your situation.

Words in this section

Terms with a legal meaning that is narrower than the everyday one. Each links to the definition and the authority behind it.

Nearest pages

Sections that share statutes or vocabulary with this one. Most questions turn out to sit across two of them.