Case: 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB As of: 01/27/2019 04:19 PM MST 1 of 4
ENE,TERMED
U.S. District Court − District of Colorado District of Colorado (Denver)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11−cv−03074−JLK−BNB

Siaki et al v. Darr Assigned to: Judge John L. Kane Referred to: Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Cause: 42:12131 American with Disabilities Act (ADA− Accommodations)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/23/2011 Date Terminated: 09/27/2012 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Timothy Siaki

represented by Kevin William Williams Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition Legal Program 1385 South Colorado Boulevard Suite 610−A Denver, CO 80222 303−839−1775 Fax: 303−839−1782 Email: kwilliams@ccdconline.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kimberlee Moore

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition a Colorado nonprofit organization

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michaelee Owen

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Colorado Association of the Deaf a Colorado nonprofit organization

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jeanine Roybal

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Douglas Darr in his official capacity as Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado

represented by Heidi M. Miller Adams County Attorney's Office−Brighton 4430 South Adams County Parkway #C5000B Brighton, CO 80601 720−523−6116

Case: 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB As of: 01/27/2019 04:19 PM MST 2 of 4
Fax: 720−523−6114 Email: hmiller@adcogov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/23/2011
12/01/2011 12/21/2011 01/25/2012
01/26/2012 01/26/2012 02/01/2012
02/02/2012
02/02/2012
02/09/2012 03/13/2012 03/13/2012 03/15/2012
03/22/2012 03/26/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Douglas Darr (Filing fee $ 350, Receipt Number 43323) Summons Issued, filed by Timothy Siaki, Kimberlee Moore, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt)(lyg, ) (Entered: 11/25/2011)
2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Timothy Siaki, Kimberlee Moore, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. Douglas Darr served on 12/1/2011, answer due 12/22/2011. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
3 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Douglas Darr.(Miller, Heidi) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
4 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Kimberlee Moore, Timothy Siaki. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 01/25/2012)
5 MINUTE ORDER granting 4 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Judge John L. Kane on 1/26/2012.(ervsl, ) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
6 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Douglas Darr, filed by Timothy Siaki, Kimberlee Moore, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Michaelee Owen, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Jeanine Roybal.(ervsl, ) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
7 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to SUBMIT DISCLOSURES by Plaintiffs Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Timothy Siaki, Defendant Douglas Darr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Modified on 2/2/2012 Motin has been termed pursuant to Judges Chambers as this is a Stipulation)(ervsl, ). (Entered: 02/01/2012)
8 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT of Plaintiff Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition by Plaintiffs Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Timothy Siaki.. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
9 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT of Plaintiff Colorado Association of the Deaf by Plaintiffs Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Timothy Siaki.. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
10 ANSWER to 6 Amended Complaint by Douglas Darr.(Miller, Heidi) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
11 MINUTE ORDER Setting Scheduling Conference for 4/10/2012 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom A 802 before Judge John L. Kane, by Judge John L. Kane on 03/13/2012. (wjc, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
12 ORDER REFERRING CASE to United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland to provide an Early Neutral Evaluation of this case, by Judge John L. Kane on 3/13/2012. (ervsl, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
13 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiffs Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Timothy Siaki, Defendant Douglas Darr. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
14 MINUTE ORDER : Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/12/2012 10:30 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/22/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
15 Stipulation and PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge John L. Kane on 03/26/12. (jjhsl, ) (Entered: 03/26/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB As of: 01/27/2019 04:19 PM MST 3 of 4

04/03/2012 04/10/2012 04/10/2012 04/10/2012 04/12/2012 04/12/2012 06/05/2012 06/11/2012
06/11/2012
06/11/2012 07/03/2012
07/05/2012
07/06/2012 07/18/2012

16 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Timothy Siaki, Defendant Douglas Darr. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
17 Proposed Scheduling Order Amended by Plaintiffs Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Timothy Siaki, Defendant Douglas Darr. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
18 AMENDED STIPULATED SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY ORDER Discovery due by 1/18/2013. Dispositive Motions due by 2/18/2013 by Judge John L. Kane on 04/10/12. (jjhsl, ) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
19 MINUTE ENTRY for Scheduling Conference proceedings held before Judge John L. Kane 4/10/2012. Counsel will submit an AMENDED Scheduling and Discovery Order.(Court Reporter: Tamara Hoffschildt)(babia) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
20 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland: Status Conference held on 4/12/2012. Neutral Evaluation/Settlement Conference set for 6/14/2012 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. (FTR: G.Mattei) (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
21 MINUTE ORDER : Neutral Evaluation/Settlement Conference set for 6/14/2012 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/12/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
22 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Sixth Affirmative Defense by Defendant Douglas Darr (Miller, Heidi) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
23 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate Settlement Conference, Unopposed MOTION to Reset Settlement Conference by Plaintiffs Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Timothy Siaki. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
24 MEMORANDUM regarding 23 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate Settlement ConferenceUnopposed MOTION to Reset Settlement Conference filed by Jeanine Roybal, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy Siaki, Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge John L. Kane on 06/11/12. Text Only Entry (jlksec) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
25 Minute ORDER granting 23 Unopposed Motion to Vacate and Reset Settlement Conference. Neutral evaluation/Settlement Conference reset for 7/18/2012 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/11/12.(lygsl, ) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
26 Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 18 Scheduling Order Regarding Expert Witness Deadlines by Plaintiffs Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Timothy Siaki, Defendant Douglas Darr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
27 MEMORANDUM regarding 26 Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 18 Scheduling Order Regarding Expert Witness Deadlines filed by Jeanine Roybal, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy Siaki, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Douglas Darr. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge John L. Kane on 7/5/12. Text Only Entry (lygsl, ) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
28 MINUTE ORDER: 26 Stipulated Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Regarding Expert Witnes Disclosure Deadline is GRANTED. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/6/12.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
29 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland: Settlement Conference held on 7/18/2012, no settlement was reached. (bnbcd, ) Modified on 7/24/2012 to reflect correct date of hearing (bnbcd, ). (Entered: 07/19/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB As of: 01/27/2019 04:19 PM MST 4 of 4

07/19/2012 08/23/2012
09/04/2012 09/07/2012 09/25/2012 09/26/2012 09/27/2012

30 MINUTE ORDER: Parties shall submit a confidential status report on or before 8/20/12 re: settlement efforts. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/19/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 07/19/2012)
31 Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 18 Scheduling Order Regarding Expert Witness Disclosure Deadline by Plaintiffs Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Timothy Siaki, Defendant Douglas Darr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
32 MINUTE ORDER: Parties shall file a Stipulation or Motion to Dismiss on or before 9/25/2012. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/4/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
33 ORDER Regarding Stipulated Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Regarding Expert Witness Disclosure Deadline granting 31 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, by Judge John L. Kane on 9/7/12.(sgrim) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
34 Stipulated MOTION to Dismiss by Plaintiffs Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Timothy Siaki, Defendant Douglas Darr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
35 Exhibits in Support of 34 Stipulated MOTION to Dismiss Exhibit A Settlement Agreement by Plaintiffs Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Timothy Siaki. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
36 ORDER Granting 34 Stipulated Motion to Dismiss. IT IS ORDERED that the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Parties' Settlement Agreement. FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall bear their attorney fees and costs as provided in the Settlement Agreement, by Judge John L. Kane on 9/27/12.(sgrim) (Entered: 09/27/2012)

 </s> Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: ___________________ TIMOTHY SIAKI, KIMBERLEE MOORE, and COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado nonprofit organization,
Plaintiffs, v. DOUGLAS DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Timothy Siaki, Kimberlee Moore, and Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) by and through undersigned counsel, hereby bring this Complaint against Douglas Darr, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado, for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.
Introduction 1. On July 26, 1990, now more than twenty years ago, the ADA was passed, establishing the most important civil rights law for people with disabilities in the nation’s history. 2. The ADA was passed to ensure people with disabilities are not discriminated

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 21
against. 3. One of the purposes of the ADA is ensuring that deaf or hard-of-hearing
individuals receive qualified sign language interpreter services or other auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication.
4. Title II of the ADA specifically applies to public entities, such as the Adams County, Colorado Sheriff’s Office (“ACSO”).
5. As set forth more fully below, ACSO has discriminated against deaf and hard-ofhearing individuals who have been contacted as alleged victims of crimes, against alleged deaf or hard of hearing perpetrators and against deaf or hard of hearing individuals detained at the Adams County Detention Facility (“ACDF”).
6. ACSO has refused to provide effective communication for deaf persons. 7. Plaintiffs seek a court order compelling the ACSO to comply with the ADA and Section 504, monetary damages and the recovery of their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Jurisdiction and Venue 8. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 9. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Parties 10. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) is a Colorado non-profit corporation whose members are persons with disabilities and their non-disabled allies. 11. Plaintiff Timothy Siaki is and was at all times material hereto a resident of
2

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 21
Colorado. Mr. Siaki is deaf. Mr. Siaki is a CCDC member. 12. Plaintiff Kimberlee Moore is and was at all times material hereto a resident of
Colorado. Ms. Moore is deaf. Ms. Moore is a CCDC member. 13. Defendant Douglas Darr is the Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado, elected and
serving pursuant to Part 5, Article 10, Title 30, Colorado Revised Statutes. Sheriff Darr is responsible for the operations of ACSO. On information and belief, Sheriff Darr also serves as the custodian of the ACDF. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-10-511. ACSO is responsible for the operations of the ACDF. Sheriff Darr is sued in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado.
Facts 14. According to its website http://apps.adcogov.org/sheriff/divisions.html, ACSO operates an Administrative Services Division, a Patrol Division, a Sheriff’s Substation, a Sheriff’s Detention Division, and a Jail Division, which consists of a Booking Section, Court Security Section, Detective Unit, Security Section, Transport Section, Accounting Unit, Bonding Unit, Court Services Section, Mail Unit, Programs Section, Jail Records Section, and Technical Services. 15. In May of 2010, Mr. Siaki and Ms. Moore were staying at a Super 8 Motel, located at 5888 Broadway, Denver, Colorado. 16. Late in the evening of May 14, 2010, Ms. Moore returned home and, upon her return, she and Mr. Siaki had an argument. 17. Both Mr. Siaki and Ms. Moore are deaf and communicate by using American
3

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 21
Sign Language (“ASL”). 18. ASL is a separate and distinct language from English, which uses its own unique
phrases, descriptions, syntax and grammatical rules. 19. Mr. Siaki does not speak, read or write in English. 20. Mr. Siaki does not read lips. 21. Ms. Moore has a very limited ability to speak, read and write in English. 22. Ms. Moore can occasionally read lips when she is familiar with the speaker and
the speaker’s speech patterns. 23. As set forth in records and documents from the public defender’s office involved
in Mr. Siaki’s criminal case and from the ACSO in this case, there are conflicting statements from witnesses who claimed to hear what transpired in the room that evening; however, both Mr. Siaki and Ms. Moore allege Mr. Siaki never harmed Ms. Moore. ACSO records demonstrate the ACSO deputies alleged Mr. Siaki hit Ms. Moore.
24. Plaintiffs have denied and continue to deny this allegation and tried to communicate this to the ACSO’s officers on May 14, 2010.
25. Like other deaf individuals, Plaintiffs Siaki and Moore both verbalize sounds which, to a person who is not deaf or who is unfamiliar, may sound like the deaf person is speaking loudly or abruptly.
26. On May 14, 2010, two ACSO deputies broke down the door to Mr. Siaki and Ms. Moore’s room, entered the room with their guns drawn, and ordered Mr. Siaki to the floor.
27. On information and belief, the two ACSO deputies were Jaime Keefer and
4

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 21
Christopher Eye. 28. Both deputies were aware that Mr. Siaki was deaf soon after their arrival. 29. Both deputies were aware Ms. Moore was deaf soon after their arrival. 30. Because Mr. Siaki is deaf, he was unable to understand the Deputies’ commands. 31. Deputy Keefer grabbed Mr. Siaki’s left arm and physically forced him to the
floor. 32. Based on statements obtained, he did so because he believed Mr. Siaki was not
complying with his orders. 33. Mr. Siaki had no understanding of what the deputies said before forcing him to
the floor. 34. One of the deputies handcuffed Mr. Siaki behind his back. 35. Deputy Keefer knew Mr. Siaki was deaf, but made assumptions that Mr. Siaki
could understand Deputy Keefer. 36. According to Deputy Keefer’s statement in the record, Deputy Keefer instructed
Mr. Siaki to write his version of events on a piece of paper. 37. Deputy Keefer wrote in his Affidavit in Support of Warrantless Arrest that Mr.
Siaki “refused” to write. 38. Mr. Siaki cannot read and write effectively. 39. Throughout their interaction on May 14, 2010, Mr. Siaki attempted as best he
could to communicate to the deputies that he did not read, write, speak or understand English, and that he required a qualified sign language interpreter, but the Deputies did not offer or
5

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 21
provide him with an interpreter or any other auxiliary aid or service. 40. Neither deputy attempted to offer or provide auxiliary aids and services to Mr.
Siaki. 41. Mr. Siaki’s inability to communicate effectively verbally and in writing is readily
apparent. 42. On information and belief, the deputies had no reason to force Mr. Siaki to the
floor and handcuff him except for their mistaken belief that he understood what they said and refused to comply.
43. At or about the time Deputy Keefer forced Mr. Siaki to the floor, Deputy Eye took Ms. Moore from the room.
44. Ms. Moore posed no threat of any kind to the health or safety of the deputies or anyone else.
45. While outside, Deputy Eye requested that Ms. Moore complete a written statement.
46. Ms. Moore is unable to communicate effectively by writing in English. 47. Ms. Moore attempted to the best of her ability to communicate to Deputy Eye that she is unable to communicate effectively by writing in English, but was unable to do so effectively because she was not offered or provided a qualified sign language interpreter. 48. Because Ms. Moore was not offered or provided with appropriate auxiliary aids and services, she was unable to communicate effectively what happened. 49. Neither deputy attempted to offer or provide auxiliary aids and services to Ms.
6

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 21
Moore. 50. As a result, Ms. Moore’s written statement is inaccurate. 51. The deputies contacted North Washington Fire Department (“NWFD”)
paramedics to examine Ms. Moore. 52. Defendants neither offered nor provided auxiliary aids and services for Ms.
Moore’s interactions with the paramedics. 53. Ms. Moore was unable to effectively communicate with the paramedics because
she was not provided with appropriate auxiliary aids and services. 54. Ms. Moore wanted to communicate to the paramedics that Ms. Siaki did not hit
her. 55. According to Deputy Keefer’s Affidavit in Support of Warrantless Arrest,
“Deputy Eye advised [Deputy Keefer] while Kimberly [sic] was being treated inside the ambulance she told the paramedics Timothy had hit her in the mouth.”
56. Because ACSO’s deputies failed to provide effective communication, Ms. Moore was not able to communicate effectively with the deputies.
57. Deputy Keefer decided that Mr. Siaki had hit Ms. Moore and placed him under arrest.
58. When Ms. Moore realized that the deputies were placing Mr. Siaki under arrest for allegedly hitting her, she attempted to clear up the confusion, but she was unable to do so because the deputies neither offered nor provided auxiliary aids and services that would have enabled Ms. Moore to communicate effectively.
7

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 21
59. Deputy Eye reported in an Incident/Investigation Report as “[t]he female party changed her story and said that the male party did not punch her, that he had tried to catch her by the neck/jaw as she was falling down from tripping.”
60. Deputy Keefer completed a “Domestic Violence Case Summary” form, and directed Ms. Moore to sign it.
61. That “Domestic Violence Case Summary” form indicated that Mr. Siaki had struck Ms. Moore with his hand, had pushed and shoved her, and that Ms. Moore did not require an interpreter.
62. The effect of signing the “Domestic Violence Case Summary” form to comply with Deputy Keefer’s instructions was that Ms. Moore affirmed that the information contained on the form was correct; however, Ms. Moore did not understand the form, did not complete the form, disputes several of the statements made on the form, and only signed the form because she was directed to do so by Deputy Keefer.
63. Mr. Siaki was handcuffed and transported to an Adams County substation for booking.
64. Because Mr. Siaki was denied access to effective communication by the deputies, he did not know why he was being arrested and did not know where he was being taken.
65. Because Ms. Moore was denied access to effective communication by the deputies, she did not know why Mr. Siaki was being arrested and did not know where he was being taken.
66. While at the Adams County substation, Deputy Keefer gave Mr. Siaki a form
8

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 21
with his Miranda rights, written in English. 67. Deputy Keefer directed Mr. Siaki to sign the Miranda rights form. 68. Mr. Siaki did not understand his Miranda rights. 69. Mr. Siaki was denied access to effective communication by the deputies and,
therefore, could not convey that he did not understand the Miranda form. 70. Mr. Siaki did not understand that by signing the Miranda rights form, he was
acknowledging that he understood what his rights were. 71. Because Mr. Siaki, while in custody, was directed to sign the form by Deputy
Keefer, he signed the form. 72. At the substation, Mr. Siaki was directed to sign several other forms. He did not
understand any of the forms or the effect of his signature on those forms. 73. Mr. Siaki signed the forms because he was afraid of the deputies who directed
him to sign the forms. 74. The ACSO neither offered nor provided Mr. Siaki access to effective
communication at the substation. 75. Mr .Siaki remained at the substation for approximately one hour before being
transported to the Adams County Detention Facility (“ACDF”). 76. For the entirety of his time at the Adams County substation, Mr. Siaki repeatedly
attempted to request a sign language interpreter, but the Adams County Deputies and staff did not offer or provide him with appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including a sign language interpreter.
9

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 21
77. For the entirety of his time at the Adams County substation, the Adams County Deputies and staff did not offer or provide Mr. Siaki with a means by which he could communicate his need for a sign language interpreter.
78. Due to ACSO’s failure to offer or provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services, Mr. Siaki was unable to communicate effectively with anyone while at the substation.
79. Mr. Siaki was also denied equal access to telecommunications equipment by ACSO.
80. Other hearing detainees had access to a telephone to make a call during the booking process.
81. Mr. Siaki was not provided access to a TDD (telecommunications device for the deaf) on equal terms.
82. After Mr. Siaki’s arrest, and using the internet-based relay system, My IP Relay, Ms. Moore called Adams County inmate information telephone number.
83. Ms. Moore called the Adams County inmate information telephone number in order to determine what was happening to Mr. Siaki, what he was charged with, where he was taken, and whether there was a bond.
84. The individual who answered Ms. Moore’s telephone call, on information and belief, was an ACSO deputy or staff member by the name of Sally Elkerton.
85. According to records obtained through releases and Colorado Access to Criminal Justice Act requests, Ms. Elkerton informed Ms. Moore of Mr. Siaki’s charge, and stated that she would be unable to visit him for seven more days.
10

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 21
86. Ms. Moore then asked Ms. Elkerton when and where Mr. Siaki’s first court appearance would be.
87. After some delay, Ms. Elkerton told Ms. Moore that Mr. Siaki was due in court at 8:00 a.m. on the following Monday, which was approximately two days away.
88. Ms. Elkerton told Ms. Moore that court would be convened at the ACDF address of 150 North Nineteenth Avenue, not the court address.
89. Ms. Moore then called the ACSO at (303) 654-1850, also using a relay service and spoke with Adams County Detention Specialist Megan Moore.
90. Ms. Moore asked Detention Specialist Moore about the date, time and location of Mr. Siaki’s first court appearance. Detention Specialist Moore told Ms. Moore that the appearance would be the following Monday at 8:00 a.m.
91. Detention Specialist Moore gave Ms. Moore a different address for Mr. Siaki’s court appearance, which was for the Brighton Justice Center, 1100 Judicial Center Drive, Brighton, Colorado 80601.
92. Detention Specialist Moore also informed Ms. Moore that a restraining order had been automatically entered, restraining Mr. Siaki from having contact with Ms. Moore.
93. Ms. Moore was unaware of the restraining order. 94. Ms. Moore was extremely concerned about Mr. Siaki’s health and safety. 95. Ms. Moore felt isolated because, following Mr. Siaki’s arrest, she was left alone with no idea when she would be able to see and communicate with him next. 96. Upon Mr. Siaki’s arrival at the ACDF, he met with medical intake interviewers
11

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 21
who conducted a medical intake. 97. Mr. Siaki’s disability was readily apparent to the ACSO deputies and staff at the
ACDF, including the medical intake interviewers. 98. Mr. Siaki attempted to the best of his ability to request a sign language
interpreter, but neither the ACSO deputies nor ACSO staff offered or provided Mr. Siaki with appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including a sign language interpreter.
99. ACDF staff did not provide Mr. Siaki with a means to communicate his need for an interpreter.
100. Because ACDF staff denied him access to appropriate auxiliary aids and services, Mr. Siaki was unable to effectively communicate with the ACSO medical intake interviewers, and was unable to understand the forms the interviewers gave him.
101. ACSO staff provided Mr. Siaki with an inmate handbook, which was written in English.
102. Mr. Siaki was unable to read or understand the inmate handbook in the absence of appropriate auxiliary aids and services.
103. Mr. Siaki was detained at the ACDF for approximately twenty-five days, from May 15, 2010 until June 10, 2010.
104. Due to the ACSO deputies’ and staff’s failure to provide him with appropriate auxiliary aids and services, during Mr. Siaki’s entire detention at the ACDF was he unable to effectively communicate with the ACDF deputies or staff.
105. During his detention, Mr. Siaki did not understand why he was being detained.
12

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 21
106. During his detention, ACDF staff did not offer or provide auxiliary aids and services for any of the programs, services and activities available to hearing detainees.
107. On information and belief, the ACSO staff communicated with detainees using auditory methods which Mr. Siaki could not hear.
108. On information and belief, ACSO staff did not make such auditory communications accessible to Mr. Siaki.
109. During Ms. Moore’s relay calls to the ACDF, she made clear she was deaf. 110. When Ms. Moore was finally permitted to visit Mr. Siaki, ACSO staff did not offer or provide auxiliary aids and services to facilitate their communication. 111. Ms. Moore was denied effective communication by Defendant. 112. ACSO provides personnel who conduct pre-trial services interviews to all detainees. 113. ACSO neither offered nor provided Mr. Siaki with auxiliary aids and services for effective communication during his pre-trial services meeting. 114. As a result of ACSO’s failure to offer or provide Mr. Siaki with auxiliary aids and services for effective communication during his pre-trial services meeting, Mr. Siaki was denied effective communication with the interviewer. 115. Mr. Siaki was damaged by Defendant’s unlawful discrimination. 116. Ms. Moore was damaged by Defendant’s unlawful discrimination. 117. ACSO refuses to offer or provide sign language interpreters or other appropriate auxiliary aids and services during interrogation by its deputies.
13

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 21
118. ACSO refuses to offer or provide sign language interpreters or other appropriate auxiliary aids and services during booking.
119. ACSO refuses to offer or provide sign language interpreters or other appropriate auxiliary aids and services during medical questioning.
120. ACSO provides programs and services to detainees but does not provide auxiliary aids and services for effective communication for detainees who are deaf for such programs and services.
121. On information and belief, ACSO has a policy, practice or custom of not providing sign language interpreters or other appropriate auxiliary aids and services during interrogations, bookings, medical questioning, counseling, programs and detentions.
122. On information and belief, ACSO has never provided a qualified sign language interpreter to any deaf individual who has been detained at the ACDF.
123. In response to a Colorado Open Records Act request by the Colorado CrossDisability Coalition, the ACSO reported that nine inmates identified as deaf were booked at the ACDF from December 2009 to August 2011.
124. ACSO denies access to auxiliary aids and services for deaf detainees (e.g., a TTY or video phone) to communicate with persons outside the Detention Facility during times when hearing detainees are permitted to make telephone calls.
125. ACSO has no policies informing its employees and/or contractors about providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services to detainees who are deaf or hard of hearing.
126. Plaintiffs and other deaf individuals will be harmed if Defendant does not change
14

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 21
its policies, practices and procedures. 127. Plaintiffs and other deaf individuals will be harmed if Defendant does not
immediately adopt and implement policies, practices and procedures to ensure that deaf detainees are provided with effective communication.
128. CCDC’s purpose is to promote independence, self-reliance, and full participation for people with all types of disabilities, and to combat discrimination against individuals with disabilities, through advocacy, education, research and training. As a part of that purpose, CCDC seeks to ensure that individuals who are deaf and hard-of-hearing have access to -- and do not encounter discrimination in -- participating in government services, including services while encountering law enforcement officials, and while being arrested, booked, interrogated, and detained.
129. CCDC engages in extensive outreach as well as advocacy and educational efforts to promote access for and combat discrimination against people with disabilities. This effort and this purpose have been and continue to be adversely affected by Defendant’s violations of the ADA and Section 504.
130. ACSO’s actions have caused and continue to cause distinct, palpable and perceptible injury to CCDC. Those injuries include, but are not limited to, those described herein.
131. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, and educational efforts, to communicating with Defendant in an attempt to secure accessible services, activities and programs.
15

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 21
132. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, and educational efforts, to educate members and others who have been injured by Defendant’s discrimination.
133. ACSO’s discrimination has been and continues to be a barrier to the full participation of persons with disabilities and, therefore, frustrates CCDC’s ability to achieve full inclusion for persons with disabilities. For example:
a. Defendant’s discrimination, in and of itself, denies effective communication to people who are deaf; and
b. Defendant’s actions send the message that such discrimination continues to be acceptable at this time.
134. Defendant’s discrimination has required and continues to require CCDC to make a greater effort -- and to allocate significant resources -- to educate the public that such discrimination is wrong and otherwise to counteract the adverse impact of such discrimination. This perceptibly impairs CCDC’s counseling, advocacy, educational, and training missions.
135. CCDC also has devoted and continues to devote resources -- including but not limited to those devoted to the present lawsuit -- to identifying and counteracting the sources of discrimination in the community, including that of Defendant.
136. CCDC’s injuries -- including, without limitation, those described herein -- are traceable to Defendant’s discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint and will be redressed by the relief requested in it.
137. CCDC’s members include individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing who
16

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 21
require auxiliary aids and services for effective communication. 138. CCDC’s members have been injured and will continue to be injured by
Defendant’s discrimination described above. 139. The elimination of discrimination, such as that of Defendant, is at the core of
CCDC’s organizational purpose. 140. The participation of individual CCDC members in the lawsuit is not required
either to resolve the claims at issue or to formulate relief. First Claim for Relief (Violations of the ADA)
141. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the remainder of the allegations set forth in this Complaint as fully set forth herein.
142. Title II of the ADA provides in pertinent part: “[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by any such entity.”
143. Public entities are defined as “any State or local government; [and] any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A)-(B).
144. Defendant is a public entity within the meaning of the ADA. 145. Plaintiff Siaki is a qualified individual with a disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). 146. Plaintiff Moore is a qualified individual with a disability. See 42 U.S.C. §
17

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 21
12131(2). 147. CCDC also has members who are also qualified individuals with disabilities. 148. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff Siaki on the basis of his disability. 149. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff Moore on the basis of her disability. 150. Plaintiff Siaki, Plaintiff Moore and CCDC have been, and will continue to be,
injured, damaged and aggrieved by Defendant’s discrimination. 151. Plaintiff Siaki, Plaintiff Moore and other CCDC members who are deaf are likely
to encounter the same discriminatory policies and practices. 152. In the absence of the injunction requested herein, Defendant will continue to
discriminate against Plaintiff Siaki, Plaintiff Moore and CCDC, including its members, on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA and its implementing regulations.
153. Defendant and its agents acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for Plaintiff Siaki’s civil rights.
154. Defendant and its agents acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for Plaintiff Moore’s civil rights.
155. Defendant and its agents acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for the civil rights of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.
156. CCDC members are individuals with disabilities, and are qualified to participate in the services, programs, activities and benefits of Defendant’s law enforcement activities within the meaning of Section 504.
157. Defendant and its agents acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for
18

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 21
Plaintiffs’ civil rights. 158. Defendant and its agents acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for the
civil rights of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. 159. Plaintiffs have been injured, damaged and aggrieved by and will continue to be
injured, damaged and aggrieved by Defendant’s discrimination. Second Claim for Relief (Violations of Section 504)
160. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the remainder of the allegations set forth in this Complaint as fully set forth herein.
161. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), provides in pertinent part:
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 162. Defendant receives federal funding through state and federal programs. 163. In addition, Defendant’s law enforcement and detention activities constitute the operation of “a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(1)(A). 164. Plaintiff Siaki is a qualified individual with a disability and has been subjected to discrimination by ACSO, as described in this Complaint, solely on the basis of his disability. Such discrimination includes the failure to provide auxiliary aids and services in order to ensure effective communication.
19

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 21
165. Plaintiff Moore is a qualified individual with a disability and has been subjected to discrimination by the ACSO, as described in this Complaint, solely on the basis of her disability. Such discrimination includes the failure to provide auxiliary aids and services in order to ensure effective communication.
166. CCDC members are individuals with disabilities, and are qualified to participate in the services, programs, activities and benefits of Defendant’s law enforcement activities within the meaning of Section 504.
167. Defendant and its agents acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ civil rights.
168. Defendant and its agents acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for the civil rights of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.
169. Plaintiffs have been injured, damaged and aggrieved by and will continue to be injured, damaged and aggrieved by Defendant’s discrimination.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray: That this Court assume jurisdiction; That this Court issue an Order declaring Defendant to be in violation of Section 504 and Title II of the ADA; That this Court issue an injunction ordering Defendant to provide qualified sign language interpreters or other appropriate auxiliary aids or services in order to ensure effective communication with deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.
20

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 21

That this Court awards Plaintiffs damages.

That this Court award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper and

equitable.

JURY DEMAND: Plaintiffs request this case be heard by the court without a jury.

Dated: November 23, 2011

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Kevin W. Williams Kevin W. Williams Andrew C. Montoya Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 839-1775 Facsimile: (303) 839-1782 E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org E-mail: amontoya@ccdconline.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Address of Plaintiff Timothy Siaki:

9801 East 1st Avenue Apartment A-205 Aurora, CO 80010

Address of Plaintiff Kimberlee Moore:

9801 East 1st Avenue Apartment A-205 Aurora, CO 80010

Address for Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition:

655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, Colorado 80203

21

 </s> Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 29
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB TIMOTHY SIAKI, KIMBERLEE MOORE, MICHAELEE OWEN, JEANINE ROYBAL, COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado nonprofit organization, and COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, a Colorado nonprofit organization,
Plaintiffs, v. DOUGLAS DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado,
Defendant.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Timothy Siaki, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”), and Colorado Association of the Deaf (“CAD”) by and through undersigned counsel, hereby bring this Complaint against Douglas Darr, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado, for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.
Introduction 1. On July 26, 1990, now more than twenty years ago, the ADA was passed, establishing the most important civil rights law for people with disabilities in the nation’s

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 29
history. 2. The ADA was passed to ensure people with disabilities are not discriminated
against. 3. One of the purposes of the ADA is ensuring that deaf or hard-of-hearing
individuals receive qualified sign language interpreter services or other auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication.
4. Title II of the ADA specifically applies to public entities, such as the Adams County, Colorado Sheriff’s Office (“ACSO”).
5. As set forth more fully below, ACSO has discriminated against deaf and hard-ofhearing individuals who have been questioned as alleged victims of crimes, against deaf or hard of hearing alleged perpetrators and against deaf or hard of hearing individuals detained at the Adams County Detention Facility (“ACDF”).
6. ACSO has refused to provide effective communication for deaf persons. 7. Plaintiffs seek a court order compelling the ACSO to comply with the ADA and Section 504, monetary damages and the recovery of their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Jurisdiction and Venue 8. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 9. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Parties 10. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) is a Colorado non-profit
2

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 29
corporation whose members are persons with disabilities and their non-disabled allies. 11. Colorado Association of the Deaf (“CAD”) is a Colorado non-profit
corporation whose members are deaf individuals and their families. 12. Plaintiff Timothy Siaki is and was at all times material hereto a resident of
Colorado. Mr. Siaki is deaf. 13. Plaintiff Kimberlee Moore is and was at all times material hereto a resident of
Colorado. Ms. Moore is deaf. 14. Plaintiff Michaelee Owen is and was at all times material hereto a resident of
Colorado. Mr. Owen is deaf. 15. Plaintiff Jeanine Roybal is and was at all times material hereto a resident of
Colorado. Ms. Roybal is Plaintiff Owen’s guardian. 16. Defendant Douglas Darr is the Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado, elected and
serving pursuant to Part 5, Article 10, Title 30, Colorado Revised Statutes. Sheriff Darr is responsible for the operations of ACSO. On information and belief, Sheriff Darr also serves as the custodian of the ACDF. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-10-511. ACSO is responsible for the operations of the ACDF. Sheriff Darr is sued in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado.
Facts 17. Plaintiffs Siaki, Moore, Owen and Roybal are all members of CCDC and/or CAD. 18. ACSO operates an Administrative Services Division, a Patrol Division, a Sheriff’s Substation, a Sheriff’s Detention Division, and a Jail Division. The Jail Division
3

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 29
consists of a Booking Section, Court Security Section, Detective Unit, Security Section, Transport Section, Accounting Unit, Bonding Unit, Court Services Section, Mail Unit, Programs Section, Jail Records Section, and Technical Services.
19. In May of 2010, Mr. Siaki and Ms. Moore were staying at a Super 8 Motel, located at 5888 Broadway, Denver, Colorado.
20. Late in the evening of May 14, 2010, Ms. Moore returned home and, upon her return, she and Mr. Siaki had an argument.
21. Both Mr. Siaki and Ms. Moore are deaf and communicate by using American Sign Language (“ASL”).
22. ASL is a separate and distinct language from English, which uses its own unique phrases, descriptions, syntax and grammatical rules.
23. Mr. Siaki does not speak, read or write effectively in English. 24. Mr. Siaki does not read lips. 25. Mr. Siaki can write some words and phrases, but he does not understand most written communication. 26. Ms. Moore has a very limited ability to speak, read and write in English. 27. Ms. Moore can occasionally read lips when she is familiar with the speaker and the speaker’s speech patterns. 28. As set forth in records and documents from the public defender’s office involved in Mr. Siaki’s criminal case and from the ACSO in this case, there are conflicting statements from witnesses who claimed to hear what transpired in the room that evening; however, both Mr.
4

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 29
Siaki and Ms. Moore allege Mr. Siaki never harmed Ms. Moore. ACSO records demonstrate the ACSO deputies alleged Mr. Siaki harmed Ms. Moore.
29. Plaintiffs have denied and continue to deny this allegation and tried to communicate this to the ACSO’s officers on May 14, 2010.
30. Like other deaf individuals, Plaintiffs Siaki and Moore both verbalize sounds which, to a person who is not deaf or who is unfamiliar, may sound like the deaf person is speaking loudly or abruptly.
31. On May 14, 2010, two ACSO deputies went to hotel room where Mr. Siaki and Ms. Moore were staying.
32. The two ACSO deputies were Jaime Keefer and Christopher Eye. 33. Deputy Keefer broke open the door to Mr. Siaki and Ms. Moore’s room. 34. One of the two deputies entered the room with a gun drawn. 35. Deputy Keefer ordered Mr. Siaki to the floor. 36. Mr. Siaki did not hear him and did not understand. 37. Mr. Siaki pointed to his ears and shook his head “no” to indicate he is deaf. 38. Deputy Keefer was aware that Mr. Siaki was deaf soon after their arrival. 39. Deputy Eye was aware Ms. Moore was deaf soon after their arrival. 40. Because Mr. Siaki is deaf, he was unable to understand the Deputies’ commands. 41. Deputy Keefer grabbed Mr. Siaki’s left arm and physically forced him to the floor. 42. Deputy Keefer forced Mr. Siaki to the floor because he believed Mr. Siaki was
5

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 29
not complying with his orders. 43. Mr. Siaki had no understanding of what the deputies said before forcing him to
the floor. 44. One of the deputies handcuffed Mr. Siaki behind his back. 45. Deputy Keefer knew Mr. Siaki was deaf, but made assumptions that Mr. Siaki
could understand Deputy Keefer. 46. According to Deputy Keefer’s statement in the record, Deputy Keefer instructed
Mr. Siaki to write his version of events on a piece of paper. 47. Deputy Keefer wrote in his Affidavit in Support of Warrantless Arrest that Mr.
Siaki “refused” to write. 48. Mr. Siaki cannot read and write effectively. 49. Throughout their interaction on May 14, 2010, Mr. Siaki attempted as best he
could to communicate to the deputies that he required a qualified sign language interpreter, but the Deputies did not offer or provide him with an interpreter.
50. After Mr. Siaki was handcuffed, he had no way of communicating. 51. Neither deputy attempted to offer or provide auxiliary aids and services to Mr. Siaki. 52. Mr. Siaki’s inability to communicate effectively verbally is readily apparent. 53. Mr. Siaki’s inability to communicate effectively in writing is readily apparent. 54. The deputies had no reason to force Mr. Siaki to the floor and handcuff him except for their mistaken belief that he understood what they said and refused to comply.
6

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 29
55. At or about the time Deputy Keefer forced Mr. Siaki to the floor, Deputy Eye took Ms. Moore from the room.
56. Ms. Moore posed no threat of any kind to the health or safety of the deputies or anyone else.
57. While outside, Deputy Eye requested that Ms. Moore complete a written statement.
58. Ms. Moore is unable to communicate effectively by writing in English. 59. Ms. Moore was unable to communicate effectively because she was not offered or provided a qualified sign language interpreter. 60. Because Ms. Moore was not offered or provided with appropriate auxiliary aids and services, she was unable to communicate effectively what happened. 61. Neither deputy attempted to offer or provide auxiliary aids and services to Ms. Moore. 62. As a result, Ms. Moore’s written statement is inaccurate. 63. The deputies called North Washington Fire Department (“NWFD”) paramedics to examine Ms. Moore. 64. Defendant neither offered nor provided auxiliary aids and services for Ms. Moore’s interactions with the paramedics. 65. Ms. Moore was unable to effectively communicate with the paramedics because she was not provided with appropriate auxiliary aids and services. 66. Ms. Moore wanted to communicate to the paramedics that Ms. Siaki did not hit
7

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 29
her. 67. According to Deputy Keefer’s Affidavit in Support of Warrantless Arrest,
“Deputy Eye advised [Deputy Keefer] while Kimberly [sic] was being treated inside the ambulance she told the paramedics Timothy had hit her in the mouth.”
68. Because ACSO’s deputies failed to provide effective communication, Ms. Moore was not able to communicate effectively with the deputies.
69. Deputy Keefer decided that Mr. Siaki had hit Ms. Moore and placed him under arrest.
70. Deputy Eye reported in a later Incident/Investigation Report as “[t]he female party changed her story and said that the male party did not punch her, that he had tried to catch her by the neck/jaw as she was falling down from tripping.”
71. Deputy Keefer completed a “Domestic Violence Case Summary” form, and directed Ms. Moore to sign it.
72. That “Domestic Violence Case Summary” form indicated that Mr. Siaki had struck Ms. Moore with his hand, had pushed and shoved her, and that Ms. Moore did not require an interpreter.
73. The effect of signing the “Domestic Violence Case Summary” form to comply with Deputy Keefer’s instructions was that Ms. Moore affirmed that the information contained on the form was correct.
74. Ms. Moore did not understand the form, did not complete the form, disputes several of the statements made on the form, and only signed the form because she was directed
8

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 29
to do so by Deputy Keefer. 75. Mr. Siaki was handcuffed and transported to an Adams County substation for
booking. 76. Because Mr. Siaki was denied access to effective communication by the deputies,
he did not know why he was being arrested and did not know where he was being taken. 77. Because Ms. Moore was denied access to effective communication by the
deputies, she did not know why Mr. Siaki was being arrested and did not know where he was being taken.
78. While at the Adams County substation, Deputy Keefer gave Mr. Siaki a form with his Miranda rights, written in English.
79. Deputy Keefer directed Mr. Siaki to sign the Miranda rights form. 80. Mr. Siaki did not understand his Miranda rights. 81. Mr. Siaki was denied access to effective communication by the deputies and, therefore, could not convey that he did not understand the Miranda form. 82. Mr. Siaki did not understand that by signing the Miranda rights form, he was acknowledging that he understood what his rights were. 83. Because Mr. Siaki, while in custody, was directed to sign the form by Deputy Keefer, he signed the form. 84. At the substation, Mr. Siaki was directed to sign several other forms. He did not understand any of the forms or the effect of his signature on those forms. 85. Mr. Siaki signed the forms because he was afraid of the deputies who directed
9

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 29
him to sign the forms. 86. The ACSO neither offered nor provided Mr. Siaki access to effective
communication at the substation. 87. Mr. Siaki remained at the substation for approximately one hour before being
transported to the Adams County Detention Facility (“ACDF”). 88. For the entirety of his time at the Adams County substation, Mr. Siaki repeatedly
attempted to convey he was deaf so someone would offer a sign language interpreter. 89. The Adams County Deputies and staff did not offer or provide him with
appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including a sign language interpreter. 90. For the entirety of his time at the Adams County substation, the Adams County
Deputies and staff did not offer or provide Mr. Siaki with a means by which he could communicate his need for a sign language interpreter.
91. Due to ACSO’s failure to offer or provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services, Mr. Siaki was unable to communicate effectively with anyone while at the substation.
92. Mr. Siaki was also denied equal access to telecommunications equipment by ACSO.
93. Other hearing detainees had access to a telephone to make a call during the booking process.
94. Mr. Siaki was not provided access to a TDD (telecommunications device for the deaf) on equal terms as hearing inmates were provided access to telephones.
95. After Mr. Siaki’s arrest, and using the internet-based relay system, My IP Relay,
10

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 29
Ms. Moore called Adams County inmate information telephone number. 96. Ms. Moore called the Adams County inmate information telephone number in
order to determine what was happening to Mr. Siaki. 97. The individual who answered Ms. Moore’s telephone call, on information and
belief, was an ACSO deputy or staff member by the name of Sally Elkerton. 98. Ms. Elkerton informed Ms. Moore of Mr. Siaki’s charge, and stated that she
would be unable to visit him for seven more days. 99. Ms. Moore then asked Ms. Elkerton when and where Mr. Siaki’s first court
appearance would be. 100. After some delay, Ms. Elkerton told Ms. Moore that Mr. Siaki was due in court at
8:00 a.m. on the following Monday, which was approximately two days away. 101. Ms. Elkerton told Ms. Moore that court would be convened at the ACDF address
of 150 North Nineteenth Avenue, not the court address. 102. Ms. Moore then called the ACSO at (303) 654-1850, also using a relay service
and spoke with Adams County Detention Specialist Megan Moore. 103. Ms. Moore asked Detention Specialist Moore about the date, time and location of
Mr. Siaki’s first court appearance. Detention Specialist Moore told Ms. Moore that the appearance would be the following Monday at 8:00 a.m.
104. Detention Specialist Moore gave Ms. Moore a different address for Mr. Siaki’s court appearance, which was for the Brighton Justice Center, 1100 Judicial Center Drive, Brighton, Colorado 80601.
11

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 29
105. Detention Specialist Moore also informed Ms. Moore that a restraining order had been automatically entered, restraining Mr. Siaki from having contact with Ms. Moore.
106. Ms. Moore was unaware of the restraining order. 107. Ms. Moore was extremely concerned about Mr. Siaki’s health and safety. 108. Ms. Moore felt isolated because, following Mr. Siaki’s arrest, she was left alone with no idea when she would be able to see and communicate with him next. 109. Upon Mr. Siaki’s arrival at the ACDF, he met with medical intake interviewers who conducted a medical intake. 110. Mr. Siaki’s disability was readily apparent to the ACSO deputies and staff at the ACDF, including the medical intake interviewers. 111. Mr. Siaki attempted to the best of his ability to inform them he was deaf so they would provide a sign language interpreter, but neither the ACSO deputies nor ACSO staff offered or provided Mr. Siaki with appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including a sign language interpreter. 112. ACDF staff did not provide Mr. Siaki with a means to communicate his need for an interpreter. 113. Because ACDF staff denied him access to appropriate auxiliary aids and services, Mr. Siaki was unable to effectively communicate with the ACSO medical intake interviewers, and was unable to understand the forms the interviewers gave him. 114. ACSO staff provided Mr. Siaki with an inmate handbook, which was written in English.
12

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 29
115. Mr. Siaki was unable to read or understand the inmate handbook in the absence of appropriate auxiliary aids and services.
116. Mr. Siaki was detained at the ACDF for approximately twenty-five days, from May 15, 2010 until June 10, 2010.
117. Due to the ACSO deputies’ and staff’s failure to provide him with appropriate auxiliary aids and services, during Mr. Siaki’s entire detention at the ACDF was he unable to effectively communicate with the ACDF deputies or staff.
118. During his detention, Mr. Siaki did not understand why he was being detained. 119. During his detention, ACDF staff did not offer or provide auxiliary aids and services for any of the programs, services and activities available to hearing detainees. 120. On information and belief, the ACSO staff communicated with detainees using auditory methods which Mr. Siaki could not hear. 121. On information and belief, ACSO staff did not make such auditory communications accessible to Mr. Siaki. 122. During Ms. Moore’s relay calls to the ACDF, she made clear she was deaf. 123. When Ms. Moore was finally permitted to visit Mr. Siaki, ACSO staff did not offer or provide auxiliary aids and services to facilitate their communication. 124. Ms. Moore was denied effective communication by Defendant. 125. Plaintiff Michaelee Owen was arrested on or about November 2, 2011 by the Federal Heights Police Department. 126. On information and belief, the Federal Heights Police transported Mr. Owen to
13

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 29
the ACDF on or about November 2, 2011. 127. Mr. Owen was detained at the ACDF from November 2, 2011 through November
8, 2011. 128. Mr. Owen does not speak, read or write in English effectively. 129. Mr. Owen does not read lips. 130. Mr. Owen communicates by using ASL. 131. Mr. Owen’s inability to communicate verbally is readily apparent. 132. Mr. Owen’s inability to communicate effectively in writing is readily apparent. 133. ACSO Personnel were made aware that Mr. Owen is deaf when he arrived at the
ACDF. 134. ACSO never offered or provided Mr. Owen with the services of a sign language
interpreter. 135. ACSO did not offer or provide Mr. Owen an interpreter during the booking
process. 136. ACSO did not offer or provide Mr. Owen an interpreter during the intake,
screening and medical evaluation process. 137. For the entirety of his detention at the ACDF, Mr. Owen attempted to
communicate that he is deaf so that ACSO Personnel would provide a sign language interpreter, but Defendant’s Personnel did not offer or provide him with a sign language interpreter.
138. On information and belief, for the entirety of his time at the ACDF, Defendant’s Personnel did not offer or provide Mr. Owen with a means by which he could communicate his
14

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 29
need for a sign language interpreter. 139. Due to Defendant’s and Defendant’s Personnel’s failure to provide appropriate
auxiliary aids and services, Mr. Owen was unable to communicate effectively with anyone while at the ACDF.
140. On information and belief, Defendant and Defendant’s Personnel never provided Mr. Owen with a qualified sign language interpreter or any other appropriate auxiliary aid or service, thereby denying him effective communication.
141. Mr. Owen was also denied equal access to telecommunications equipment by Defendant and Defendant’s Personnel while at the ACDF.
142. On information and belief, during his detention at the ACDF, Defendant denied access to a TDD or other telecommunications equipment on his first day of detention.
143. Later, ACSO Personnel brought Mr. Owen a TTY machine to make a call. 144. The TTY machine was inoperable. 145. ACSO Personnel never offered or provided any other access for Mr. Owen to communicate with anyone outside the ACDF. 146. Mr. Owen was unable to communicate with anyone outside of the ACDF until his cell mate, who was not deaf but who knew some sign language, telephoned Ms. Roybal on his behalf. 147. Defendant and Defendant’s Personnel denied Mr. Owen effective communication for the entirety of his detention at the ACDF. 148. Mr. Owen was damaged by Defendant’s unlawful discrimination.
15

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 29
149. Ms. Roybal is Mr. Owen’s aunt and guardian. 150. Once Ms. Roybal was informed, by Mr. Owen’s cell mate, that Mr. Owen was at the ACDF, she called ACSO Personnel. 151. ACSO Personnel informed Ms. Roybal that she would not be able to see Mr. Owen for several days. 152. ACSO Personnel provided no means for Ms. Roybal and Mr. Owen to communicate. 153. Other hearing inmates had access to telephones during Mr. Owen’s detention. 154. When Ms. Roybal did visit Mr. Owen, ACSO Personnel asked Ms. Roybal to interpret for Mr. Owen. 155. Ms. Roybal was damaged by Defendant’s unlawful discrimination. 156. Defendant refuses to offer or provide sign language interpreters or other appropriate auxiliary aids and services during questioning by Defendant’s deputies. 157. Defendant refuses to offer or provide sign language interpreters or other appropriate auxiliary aids and services during booking. 158. Defendant refuses to offer or provide sign language interpreters or other appropriate auxiliary aids and services during medical questioning. 159. Defendant provides programs and services to detainees but does not provide auxiliary aids and services for effective communication for detainees who are deaf for such programs and services. 160. On information and belief, Defendant has a policy, practice or custom of not
16

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 29
offering or providing sign language interpreters or other appropriate auxiliary aids and services during interrogations, bookings, medical questioning, counseling, programs and detentions.
161. On information and belief, Defendant has never provided a qualified sign language interpreter to any deaf individual who has been detained at the ACDF.
162. In response to a Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act request by the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Defendant reported that nine detainees identified as deaf were booked at the ACDF from December 2009 to August 2011.
163. Defendant denies access to auxiliary aids and services for deaf detainees (e.g., a TTY or video phone) to communicate with persons outside the ACDF during times when hearing detainees are permitted to make telephone calls.
164. Defendant has no policies informing Defendant’s Personnel about providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services to detainees who are deaf or hard of hearing.
165. Defendant does not make deaf individuals aware that auxiliary aids and services, including sign language interpreters, are available.
166. Plaintiffs and other deaf individuals will be harmed if Defendant does not change its policies, practices and procedures.
167. Plaintiffs and other deaf individuals will be harmed if Defendant does not immediately adopt and implement policies, practices and procedures to ensure that deaf detainees are provided with effective communication.
168. CCDC’s purpose is to promote independence, self-reliance, and full participation for people with all types of disabilities, and to combat discrimination against individuals with
17

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 29
disabilities, through advocacy, education, research and training. As a part of that purpose, CCDC seeks to ensure that individuals who are deaf and hard-of-hearing have access to -- and do not encounter discrimination in -- participating in government services, including services while encountering law enforcement officials, and while being arrested, booked, interrogated, and detained.
169. CCDC engages in extensive outreach as well as advocacy and educational efforts to promote access for and combat discrimination against people with disabilities. This effort and this purpose have been and continue to be adversely affected by Defendant’s violations of the ADA and Section 504.
170. Defendant and Defendant’s Personnel’s actions have caused and continue to cause distinct, palpable and perceptible injury to CCDC. Those injuries include, but are not limited to, those described herein.
171. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, and educational efforts, to communicating with Defendant in an attempt to secure accessible services, activities and programs.
172. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, and educational efforts, to educate members and others who have been injured by Defendant’s discrimination.
173. Defendant’s and discrimination has been and continues to be a barrier to the full participation of persons with disabilities and, therefore, frustrates CCDC’s ability to achieve full inclusion for persons with disabilities. For example:
18

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 29
a. Defendant’s discrimination, in and of itself, denies effective communication to people who are deaf; and,
b. Defendant’s actions send the message that such discrimination continues to be acceptable at this time.
174. Defendant’s discrimination has required and continues to require CCDC to make a greater effort -- and to allocate significant resources -- to educate the public that such discrimination is wrong and otherwise to counteract the adverse impact of such discrimination. This perceptibly impairs CCDC’s counseling, advocacy, educational, and training missions.
175. CCDC also has devoted and continues to devote resources -- including but not limited to those devoted to the present lawsuit -- to identifying and counteracting the sources of discrimination in the community, including that of Defendant.
176. CCDC’s injuries -- including, without limitation, those described herein -- are traceable to Defendant’s discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint and will be redressed by the relief requested in it.
177. CCDC’s members include individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing who require auxiliary aids and services for effective communication.
178. CCDC’s members have been injured and will continue to be injured by Defendant’s discrimination described above.
179. The elimination of discrimination, such as that of Defendant, is at the core of CCDC’s organizational purpose.
180. The participation of individual CCDC members in the lawsuit is not required
19

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 29
either to resolve the claims at issue or to formulate relief. 181. CAD’s purpose is to protect the rights of the deaf individuals and their families,
to empower deaf individuals to exercise self-determination and independence, and to advocate for equal opportunities in social, educational, and employment opportunities in Colorado. As a part of that purpose, CAD seeks to ensure that deaf individuals and individuals who are hard-ofhearing have access to -- and do not encounter discrimination in -- participating in government services, including services while encountering law enforcement officials, and while being arrested, booked, interrogated, and detained.
182. CAD engages in extensive outreach as well as advocacy and educational efforts to promote access for and combat discrimination against deaf individuals. This effort and this purpose have been and continue to be adversely affected by Defendant’s violations of the ADA and Section 504.
183. Defendant’s and Defendant’s Personnel’s actions have caused and continue to cause distinct, palpable and perceptible injury to CAD. Those injuries include, but are not limited to, those described herein.
184. CAD has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, and educational efforts, to educate members and others who have been injured by Defendant’s discrimination.
185. Defendant’s discrimination has been and continues to be a barrier to the full participation of deaf individuals and, therefore, frustrates CAD’s ability to achieve full inclusion for deaf individuals. For example:
20

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 29
a. Defendant’s discrimination, in and of itself, denies effective communication to deaf individuals; and
b. Defendant’s actions send the message that such discrimination continues to be acceptable at this time.
186. Defendant’s discrimination has required and continues to require CAD to make a greater effort -- and to allocate significant resources -- to educate the public that such discrimination is wrong and otherwise to counteract the adverse impact of such discrimination. This perceptibly impairs CAD’s counseling, advocacy, educational, and training missions.
187. CAD also has devoted and continues to devote resources -- including but not limited to those devoted to the present lawsuit -- to identifying and counteracting the sources of discrimination in the community, including that of Defendant.
188. CAD’s injuries -- including, without limitation, those described herein -- are traceable to Defendant’s discriminatory conduct alleged in this Amended Complaint and will be redressed by the relief requested in it.
189. CAD’s members include deaf individuals who require auxiliary aids and services for effective communication.
190. CAD’s members have been injured and will continue to be injured by Defendant’s discrimination described above.
191. The elimination of discrimination, such as that of Defendant, is at the core of CAD’s organizational purpose.
192. The participation of individual CAD members in the lawsuit is not required either
21

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 29
to resolve the claims at issue or to formulate relief. First Claim for Relief (Violations of the ADA)
193. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the remainder of the allegations set forth in this Complaint as fully set forth herein.
194. Title II of the ADA provides in pertinent part: “[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by any such entity.”
195. Public entities are defined as “any State or local government; [and] any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A)-(B).
196. Defendant is a public entity within the meaning of the ADA. 197. Plaintiff Siaki is a qualified individual with a disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). 198. Plaintiff Moore is a qualified individual with a disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). 199. Plaintiff Owen is a qualified individual with a disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). 200. Plaintiff Roybal is an individual known to have a relationship or association with an individual, Plaintiff Owen, known to have a disability. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(g). 201. CCDC has members who are also qualified individuals with disabilities.
22

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 29
202. CAD has members who are also qualified individuals with disabilities. 203. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff Siaki on the basis of his disability. 204. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff Moore on the basis of her disability. 205. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff Owen on the basis of his disability. 206. Defendant has excluded or otherwise denied equal services, programs, or activities to Plaintiff Roybal on the basis of her known association with Plaintiff Owen, who is an individual with a disability. 207. Plaintiffs have been, and will continue to be, injured, damaged and aggrieved by Defendant’s discrimination and exclusion and/or denial of equal services, programs, or activities. 208. Plaintiffs Siaki, Moore, Owen and Roybal, other CCDC members who are deaf, and other CAD members are likely to encounter the same discriminatory policies and practices. 209. In the absence of the injunction requested herein, Defendant will continue to discriminate against and/or exclude and/or deny equal services, programs, or activities to Plaintiffs Siaki, Moore, Owen, Roybal, CCDC and CAD, including their members, on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA and its implementing regulations. 210. Defendant’s Personnel acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for Plaintiff Siaki’s civil rights. 211. Defendant’s Personnel acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for Plaintiff Moore’s civil rights. 212. Defendant’s Personnel acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for Plaintiff Owen’s civil rights.
23

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 29
213. Defendant’s Personnel acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for Plaintiff Roybal’s civil rights.
214. Defendant’s Personnel acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for the civil rights of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.
215. Defendant’s Personnel acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ civil rights.
216. Plaintiffs have been injured, damaged and aggrieved by and will continue to be injured, damaged and aggrieved by Defendant’s discrimination and/or exclusion and/or denial of equal services, programs, or activities.
24

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 29
Second Claim for Relief (Violations of Section 504) 217. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the remainder of the allegations set forth in this Complaint as fully set forth herein. 218. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), provides in pertinent part: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 219. Defendant receives federal financial assistance through state and federal programs. 220. In addition, Defendant’s law enforcement and detention activities constitute the operation of “a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(1)(A). 221. Plaintiff Siaki is a qualified individual with a disability and has been subjected to discrimination by ACSO, as described in this Complaint, solely on the basis of his disability. Such discrimination includes the failure to provide auxiliary aids and services in order to ensure effective communication. 222. Plaintiff Moore is a qualified individual with a disability and has been subjected to discrimination by the ACSO, as described in this Complaint, solely on the basis of her disability. Such discrimination includes the failure to provide auxiliary aids and services in order to ensure effective communication.
25

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 29
223. Plaintiff Owen is a qualified individual with a disability and has been subjected to discrimination by the ACSO, as described in this Complaint, solely on the basis of his disability. Such discrimination includes the failure to provide auxiliary aids and services in order to ensure effective communication.
224. Plaintiff Roybal is an individual with a relationship or association with an individual with a known disability and has been subjected to exclusion and/or denial of equal services, programs, or activities discrimination by the ACSO, as described in this Complaint, solely on the basis of Mr. Owen’s disability. Such exclusion and/or denial includes without limitation the failure to provide auxiliary aids and services in order to ensure effective communication.
225. CCDC members are individuals with disabilities, and are qualified to participate in the services, programs, activities and benefits of Defendant’s law enforcement activities within the meaning of Section 504.
226. CAD members are deaf individuals, and are qualified to participate in the services, programs, activities and benefits of Defendant’s law enforcement activities within the meaning of Section 504.
227. Defendant and its agents acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ civil rights.
228. Defendant and its agents acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for the civil rights of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.
229. Plaintiffs have been injured, damaged and aggrieved by and will continue to be
26

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 29
injured, damaged and aggrieved by Defendant’s discrimination and unlawful actions. Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray: That this Court assume jurisdiction; That this Court issue an Order declaring Defendant to be in violation of Section 504 and Title II of the ADA; That this Court issue an injunction ordering Defendant to provide qualified sign language interpreters or other appropriate auxiliary aids or services in order to ensure effective communication with deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals; That this Court award Plaintiffs’ damages; That this Court award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper and equitable. JURY DEMAND: Plaintiffs request this case be heard by a jury.
27

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 29

Dated: January 25, 2012

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Kevin W. Williams Kevin W. Williams Andrew C. Montoya Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 839-1775 Facsimile: (303) 839-1782 E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org E-mail: amontoya@ccdconline.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Address of Plaintiff Timothy Siaki:

9801 East 1st Avenue Apartment A-205 Aurora, CO 80010

Address of Plaintiff Kimberlee Moore:

9801 East 1st Avenue Apartment A-205 Aurora, CO 80010

Address of Plaintiff Michaelee Owen: 9740 Detroit Street Thornton, CO 80229

Address of Plaintiff Jeanine Roybal: 9740 Detroit Street Thornton, CO 80229

Address for Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition:

655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, Colorado 80203

Address for Plaintiff Colorado Association of the Deaf

28

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 6 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 29 P.O. Box 370294 Denver, CO 80237
29

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03074-JLK TIMOTHY SIAKI, KIMBERLEE MOORE, COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION,
Plaintiffs, v. DOUGLAS DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS Kane, J.
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34). Having reviewed the Motion and the underlying Settlement Agreement (Doc. 35), and having conferred with Magistrate Judge Boland who oversaw the settlement negotiations, I GRANT the Motion.
IT IS ORDERED that the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement, appended hereto, pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(2) and as authorized by Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Inc. So. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall bear their attorney fees and costs as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

Dated: September 27, 2012

s/John L. Kane SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE (“Agreement”) is made by and between Plaintiffs Timothy Siaki, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, and Colorado Association of the Deaf (“Plaintiffs”) and Sheriff Douglas Darr, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado (“Defendant”), collectively referred to as the “Parties.” WHEREAS, on January 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint against Defendant in a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 2012-cv-03074-JLK-BNB, in which they allege the Defendant has violated the ADA and Section 504 (“Civil Action”); and, WHEREAS, Defendant has denied and continues to deny all of the material allegations set forth in the Civil Action and continues to assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are meritless and that it is not liable to them in any way or upon any claim or cause of action; and, WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendant desire to resolve and settle in full all claims that Plaintiff has, had, or may have against Defendant or its past or present attorneys, agents, or assigns, including all claims that were, or are related to the subject-matter of, and could have been raised in, the Civil Action; and, WHEREAS, the Parties enter into a this agreement contingent upon the Court granting a stipulation for dismissal that includes a provision allowing the Court to enforce the terms of this Agreement as set forth in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994);
1

NOW, THEREFORE, in order to avoid time-consuming and costly litigation with respect
to the Civil Action, and in exchange for other good and valuable consideration as set forth below,
the sufficiency of which is hereby expressly acknowledged, Plaintiffs and Defendant agree as
follows:
1 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THIS AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be conditioned upon, and shall be effective only upon, the occurrence of all of the following events:
1.1 This Agreement must be signed by all of the Parties.
1.2 The Court must grant a dismissal of the Civil Action which incorporates the Agreement for the purpose of retaining jurisdiction for the future enforcement pursuant to Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994).
2 DEFINITIONS
As used in this Agreement, the following terms have the meanings set forth in this Section:
2.1 “ACDF” means the Adams County Detention Facility.
2.2 “ADA” means Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 35.101.
2.3 “Agreement” means this Agreement, including any exhibits or attachments hereto.
2.4 “Auditory Disability” means a disability that substantially limits the major life activity of hearing, and specifically includes deaf individuals and individuals that are hard-of-hearing.
2.5 “Auxiliary Aids and Services” has the definition set forth in the ADA and Section 504.
2.6 “CADI” means an individual with an Auditory Disability that has been Contacted,
2

or Detained by Defendant or any member of Defendant’s Personnel.
2.7 “Civil Action” means this lawsuit, Siaki, et al. v. Darr, Civil Action Number 11cv-03074-JLK.
2.8 “Compliance Log” means the log created and maintained pursuant to Section 5.1.1 of this Agreement.
2.9 “Contact” and “Contacted” means any questioning or interrogating of witnesses or suspects by any member of Defendant’s Personnel.
2.10 “Contacted Individual” means a member of the public who has been Contacted by Defendant or any of Defendant’s Personnel.
2.11 “Detained Individual” means a member of the public whose freedom is restrained in any significant way by Defendant or any member of Defendant’s Personnel.
2.12 “Detention” means all periods of timeduring which a member of the public is held at the ACDF.
2.13 “Effective Date” means the date the Court enters the Order of Dismissal.
2.14 “Emergency” means a situation that demands immediate action in order to protect the safety and welfare of the public or Defendant’s Personnel, but does not include any period of time following abatement of circumstances that caused a risk to the safety and welfare of the public.
2.15 A form substantially similar to “Exhibit A” shall be used to offer an interpreter to a CADI when that individual is brought into ACDF for booking. Exhibit A is attached hereto.
2.16 A form substantially similar to “Exhibit B” shall be used to demonstrate Defendant offered Auxiliary Aids and Services and to identify the auxiliary aid or service selected. Exhibit B is attached hereto.
2.17 “Inmate Handbook” means the handbook distributed to Detained Individuals at the ACDF and includes all written rules and policies provided to Detained Individuals when they are detained at ACDF.
2.18 “Non-emergency” means all situations that do not constitute an Emergency, including the period of time following abatement of circumstances that constituted an Emergency.
3

2.19 “Personnel” means all employees of the Adams County Sheriff’s Office, including deputies, agents, representatives, staff, employees, and contractors under the direct supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.
2.20 “Qualified Interpreter” has the meaning set forth in the ADA and Section 504.
2.21 “Released Claims” means Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant as recited in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, and any and all counterclaims Defendant may have against Plaintiffs.
2.22 “Remedies” mean the remedies provided in Section 7 of this Agreement.
2.23 “Section 504” means 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. and its implementing regulations.
2.24 “Sign Language DVDs" means the videos regarding the Inmate Handbook, and Booking Process that provide information to deaf inmates via an interpreter using American Sign Language.
2.25 “Training Session” means the mandatory training Defendant shall institute pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Agreement.
3 TERM OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement shall commence from the date that the Court approves the dismissal and continue for a term of two years.
4 POLICIES AND TRAINING
4.1 Defendant shall implement the terms of this Agreement by adopting, maintaining and complying with written Sheriff’s Office Policies and Jail Division Post Orders, attached hereto as Exhibit C. Unless otherwise specified, Defendant shall comply with all terms of this Agreement, including implementation of the Sheriff's Office Policies and Jail Division Post Orders within 30 days from the date the Court approves the dismissal of the Civil Action.
4.2 Defendant shall institute one mandatory Training Session (approximately 2 to 3 hours) conducted by an organization with experience with regard to individuals who are deaf whereunder all of the Defendant’s Personnel that Contact the public on a routine basis undergo a training session, which shall provide detailed information concerning:
4

4.2.1 Detecting the presence of Auditory Disabilities;
4.2.2 The types of Auxiliary Aids and Services that exist and their respective efficacies; and
4.2.3 Defendant’s and Defendant’s Personnel’s obligations with respect to the provision of Auxiliary Aids and Services under State and Federal laws, and this Agreement.
4.2.4 All of Defendant’s Personnel required to take the Training Session shall have completed the Training Session no later than May 1, 2013.
4.3 Defendant shall, within ninety (90) days of the date the Court dismisses the case pursuant to Section 1.2 of this Agreement, revise its Sign Language DVD describing the steps in the booking process. The video will inform inmates who request the services of a sign language interpreter that interpreters will be made available for the following, and will provide instruction regarding how to make such requests:
booking and admission; medical appointments and screening; programs; work program training; formal disciplinary actions; and release.
4.4 Defendant shall amend the Inmate Handbook to include instructions regarding a Detained Individual’s rights under this Agreement, including information necessary for a Detained Individual to request the provision of Auxiliary Aids and Services, and information necessary for a Detained Individual to file a complaint, pursuant to Section 5.2 of this Agreement. The Handbook shall be amended to include information regarding how to request to review the Sign Language DVDs again.
4.5 Defendant shall show Detained Individuals with Auditory Disabilities a video of a Qualified Interpreter interpreting the entire Inmate Handbook, which shall be shown as soon as is practicable after the intake process and may be available for review again to Detained Individuals with Auditory Disabilities as soon as is practicable after such Detained Individual’s request to review it again.
4.6 Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days of the date the Court enters this Agreement, post conspicuous signs in the ACDF, all substations, and all locations
5

where Defendant or Defendant’s Personnel may routinely have Contact with members of the public advising individuals with Auditory Disabilities of the availability of Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters. Such signs shall contain following language, or its substantial equivalent:
To ensure effective communication with individuals who are deaf or hardof-hearing, the Sheriff will provide auxiliary aids, such as, TTYs, equivalent services, and sign language interpreters at no cost. Please ask a deputy for assistance.
4.8 Defendant agrees to purchase at least one videophone for use at ACDF. The videophone will be purchased and implemented within ninety (90) days after the planned upgrade to the internet/communication system is installed at ACDF. Defendant will prepare updates to Post Orders, the Inmate Handbook, and the DVDs explaining how deaf inmates can request use of the videophone.
5 VERIFICATION AND MONITORING
5.1 Defendant shall verify and monitor compliance with this Agreement as follows:
5.1.1 Defendant shall create and maintain a Compliance Log consisting of the following:
5.1.1.1 Identify (by initials or other traceable method) the CADIs Defendant or Defendant’s Personnel have Contacted and Detained;
5.1.1.2 Identify such CADIs that have requested Auxiliary Aids and Services, including the specific Auxiliary Aid or Service requested, if any.
5.1.1.3 Identify whether Auxiliary Aids or Services were offered to each such CADI.
5.1.1.4 Identify the type of Auxiliary Aid or Service Defendant provided to each such CADI.
5.1.1.5 If the type of Auxiliary Aid or Service Defendant provided differs from the type of Auxiliary Aid or Service a CADI has requested, Defendant shall state all reasons that the CADI was not provided with the Auxiliary Aid or Service the CADI requested.
5.1.1.6 If Defendant did not provide a CADI with Auxiliary Aids or
6

Services, Defendant shall state all reasons that the CADI was not provided with Auxiliary Aids or Services.
5.1.1.7 Identify any complaints, comments or concerns made by CADIs, or individuals associated with CADIs, regarding Defendant’s provision, or lack thereof, of Auxiliary Aids and Services to CADIs.
5.1.1.8 Copies of any kites regarding denial of effective communication.
5.1.2 Defendant shall provide the Compliance Log to the County Attorney’s Office on a quarterly basis for one year after the Effective Date.
5.1.3 The County Attorney’s Office will make the Compliance Log available for inspection to interested parties, including Plaintiffs' counsel.
5.2 In addition to creating and maintaining a Compliance Log, Defendant shall inform each and every CADI that, in the event such CADI believes he or she has been denied effective communication, such CADI may complete a kite or other written complaint regarding the denial. Copies of such kites/complaints shall be maintained and kept with the Compliance Log referenced in 5.1.3 above.
6 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any dispute between the Plaintiffs and Defendant concerning compliance with the terms of this Agreement will be addressed as follows:
6.1 If any Party has reason to believe that a dispute exists, prompt written notice will be provided to the other Party at the address provided in Section 10 of this Agreement. Notice regarding alleged non-compliance by Defendant shall be provided to the County Attorney’s Office.
6.2 Defendant will be given one week after notice to cure any non-compliance.
6.3 Within one week after receipt of the notice, counsel for the Parties will confer by telephone or in person and attempt to resolve the dispute. If Defendant has cured its non-compliance, the matter will be considered resolved.
6.4 If the conferral process does not occur or does not resolve the dispute, the matter may be submitted by either Party to the U.S. District Court as contemplated by Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).
7

6.5 If Plaintiffs are successful at convincing the Court that Defendant is not in compliance with the Agreement, Defendant will pay Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs incurred during the Dispute Resolution. If Plaintiffs bring a dispute to the Court and are not successful, Plaintiffs shall pay Defendant his reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs incurred during the Dispute Resolution process consistent with the standards for awarding reasonable fees and costs found in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22 (1978).

7 REMEDIES

If Defendant admits or the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado finds that Defendant has violated the terms of this Agreement, the following Remedies shall be available to Plaintiffs:

7.1 The Court may enjoin Defendant from engaging in the conduct determined to be a violation of this Agreement and order any and all appropriate relief to correct the violation.

7.2 Penalties:

7.2.1

If the violation concerned Defendant’s failure to acknowledge a CADI's Auditory Disability that is obvious or otherwise made known to the involved employee and failure to offer Auxiliary Aids or Services, then Defendant shall pay $1,000 in damages to CCDC.

7.2.2 If the violation concerned Defendant’s failure to provide the specifically requested Auxiliary Aid or Service in Non-emergency situations, then Defendant shall pay $2,500 in damages to CCDC.

7.2.3 If the violation concerned Defendant’s failure to provide any auxiliary aids or services after they were offered and accepted, then Defendant shall pay $5,000 in damages to CCDC.

8 MONETARY CLAIMS

Within ten (20) days of the date the Court dismisses the Civil Action, as contemplated in Section 1.2 of this Agreement, Defendant shall send a check in the amount of $100,000, made payable to the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program to the address in Section 10 of this Agreement.

8

9 RELEASES
9.1 Effective on the date that the Civil Action is dismissed as contemplated in Section 1.2 of this Agreement, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their executors, successors, heirs, assigns, agents, and representatives, in consideration of the relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, unconditionally and forever do fully and finally release, acquit, and discharge Defendant from the Released Claims.
9.2 Plaintiffs (on their own behalf and/or on behalf of any other person or entity and/or on behalf of or as a member of any alleged class of persons) further agree not to commence, maintain, prosecute or participate in any civil action, charge, complaint or proceeding of any kind against Defendant or its employees, agents, or attorneys in any court, or before any administrative or investigative body or agency (whether public, quasi-public or private), during the term of this Agreement, except as discussed in Section 6 of this Agreement. Moreover, in the event Plaintiffs have commenced any such civil action, charge, complaint or proceeding of any kind, Plaintiffs, without further consideration, shall take such action as may be possible to terminate such proceedings.
9.3 Effective on the date of entry of this Agreement, Defendant, in consideration of the relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, unconditionally and forever do fully and finally release, acquit and discharge Plaintiffs and their executors, successors, heirs, assigns, agents, and representatives, from the Released Claims.
10 COMMUNICATION TO THE PARTIES
Any notifications or communications required or permitted to be given to any party under this Agreement shall be given in writing by depositing it in the U.S. Mail, addressed as follows, and by e-mail:
To Defendant:
Heidi M. Miller Deputy County Attorney Adams County Attorney’s Office 4430 S. Adams County Parkway Brighton, Colorado 80601 hmiller@adcogov.org
9

To Plaintiffs:
Kevin W. Williams Andrew C. Montoya Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, Colorado 80202 kwilliams@ccdconline.org amontoya@ccdconline.org
If any of the above addresses change, it is the responsibility of the Party whose address is changing to give written notice of said change to the other Party within thirty (30) business days following the effective date of said change.
11 ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties and, upon entry of this Agreement and continuing thereafter, shall supersede all prior agreements, arrangements and understandings between the Parties. No representation, warranty, promise, inducement, or agreement (oral or otherwise) not set forth in this Agreement shall be binding upon all Parties.
12 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER OF AGREEMENT
No term or provision of this Agreement may be modified or extinguished, in whole or in part, except by a writing, which is dated and signed by all Parties. No waiver of any of the provisions or conditions of this Agreement or of any of the rights, powers or privileges of a party hereto shall be effective or binding unless in writing and signed by the party claimed to have given or consented to such waiver.
13 FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT; NO MISTAKE
13.1 The Parties acknowledge that they have communicated the terms of this Agreement with their respective attorneys in the Civil Action before signing this Agreement, that they were represented by their attorneys in the Civil Action in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement, that they understand each of the terms of this Agreement, and that they have knowingly and voluntarily signed this Agreement as their own free act, without coercion or duress.
13.2 The individual signing this Agreement on behalf of each Party agrees and acknowledges that he or she has the authority to bind that Party to this Agreement.
10

13.3 Each of the Parties forever waives all rights to assert that this Agreement was the result of a mistake or law or fact.
14 INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT Each Party acknowledges and stipulates that the compromise and settlement which forms
the basis of this Agreement has been arrived at after thoughtful bargaining and negotiation and represents a final mutually agreeable compromise of matters provided herein. This Agreement shall not be construed more strictly against one party than another merely by virtue of the fact that it may have been prepared by counsel for one of the parties, it being recognized that, because of arm’s-length negotiations between the Parties, all Parties hereto have contributed substantially and materially to the preparation of this Agreement. 15 HEADINGS
The headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only, do not constitute part of the Agreement and shall not limit, be used to interpret, or otherwise affect in any way the provisions of the Agreement. 16 EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute the same instrument.
11

Sign Language Interpreter?
EXHIBIT A 15

Adams County Sheriff Request for Auxiliary Aid or Service Form

Inmate Name: _________________________________________________________________

Inmate Number: _______________________________________________________________

Date and time of request: ________________________________________________________

Has the inmate requested a specific Auxiliary Aid or Service?

Yes / No

If yes, specify the type of Auxiliary Aid or Service requested: _____________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________ Officer/Agent Name (Please Print Legibly)

________________________ Badge Number

Date and time request provided to Supervising Officer: ________________________________

____________________________________ Supervising Officer/Agent Name (Please Print Legibly)

________________________ Badge Number

What Auxiliary Aid or Service was provided? ________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

If the Auxiliary Aid or Service provided is different than what the inmate requested, state

why: ___________________________________________________________________

Date and time Auxiliary Aid or Service was provided: _________________________________

____________________________________ Officer/Agent Signature

____________________________________ Supervising Officer/Agent Signature

EXHIBIT B

16

 </s> Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 22
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE (“Agreement”) is made by and between Plaintiffs Timothy Siaki, Kimberlee Moore, Michaelee Owen, Jeanine Roybal, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, and Colorado Association of the Deaf (“Plaintiffs”) and Sheriff Douglas Darr, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado (“Defendant”), collectively referred to as the “Parties.” WHEREAS, on January 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint against Defendant in a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 2012-cv-03074-JLK-BNB, in which they allege the Defendant has violated the ADA and Section 504 (“Civil Action”); and, WHEREAS, Defendant has denied and continues to deny all of the material allegations set forth in the Civil Action and continues to assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are meritless and that it is not liable to them in any way or upon any claim or cause of action; and, WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendant desire to resolve and settle in full all claims that Plaintiff has, had, or may have against Defendant or its past or present attorneys, agents, or assigns, including all claims that were, or are related to the subject-matter of, and could have been raised in, the Civil Action; and, WHEREAS, the Parties enter into a this agreement contingent upon the Court granting a stipulation for dismissal that includes a provision allowing the Court to enforce the terms of this Agreement as set forth in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994);
1

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 22
NOW, THEREFORE, in order to avoid time-consuming and costly litigation with respect to the Civil Action, and in exchange for other good and valuable consideration as set forth below, the sufficiency of which is hereby expressly acknowledged, Plaintiffs and Defendant agree as follows: 1 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THIS AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be conditioned upon, and shall be effective only upon, the occurrence of all of the following events:
1.1 This Agreement must be signed by all of the Parties. 1.2 The Court must grant a dismissal of the Civil Action which incorporates the
Agreement for the purpose of retaining jurisdiction for the future enforcement pursuant to Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994). 2 DEFINITIONS As used in this Agreement, the following terms have the meanings set forth in this Section: 2.1 “ACDF” means the Adams County Detention Facility. 2.2 “ADA” means Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 35.101. 2.3 “Agreement” means this Agreement, including any exhibits or attachments hereto.
2.4 “Auditory Disability” means a disability that substantially limits the major life activity of hearing, and specifically includes deaf individuals and individuals that are hard-of-hearing.
2.5 “Auxiliary Aids and Services” has the definition set forth in the ADA and Section 504.
2.6 “CADI” means an individual with an Auditory Disability that has been Contacted,
2

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 22
or Detained by Defendant or any member of Defendant’s Personnel.
2.7 “Civil Action” means this lawsuit, Siaki, et al. v. Darr, Civil Action Number 11cv-03074-JLK.
2.8 “Compliance Log” means the log created and maintained pursuant to Section 5.1.1 of this Agreement.
2.9 “Contact” and “Contacted” means any questioning or interrogating of witnesses or suspects by any member of Defendant’s Personnel.
2.10 “Contacted Individual” means a member of the public who has been Contacted by Defendant or any of Defendant’s Personnel.
2.11 “Detained Individual” means a member of the public whose freedom is restrained in any significant way by Defendant or any member of Defendant’s Personnel.
2.12 “Detention” means all periods of timeduring which a member of the public is held at the ACDF.
2.13 “Effective Date” means the date the Court enters the Order of Dismissal.
2.14 “Emergency” means a situation that demands immediate action in order to protect the safety and welfare of the public or Defendant’s Personnel, but does not include any period of time following abatement of circumstances that caused a risk to the safety and welfare of the public.
2.15 A form substantially similar to “Exhibit A” shall be used to offer an interpreter to a CADI when that individual is brought into ACDF for booking. Exhibit A is attached hereto.
2.16 A form substantially similar to “Exhibit B” shall be used to demonstrate Defendant offered Auxiliary Aids and Services and to identify the auxiliary aid or service selected. Exhibit B is attached hereto.
2.17 “Inmate Handbook” means the handbook distributed to Detained Individuals at the ACDF and includes all written rules and policies provided to Detained Individuals when they are detained at ACDF.
2.18 “Non-emergency” means all situations that do not constitute an Emergency, including the period of time following abatement of circumstances that constituted an Emergency.
3

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 22
2.19 “Personnel” means all employees of the Adams County Sheriff’s Office, including deputies, agents, representatives, staff, employees, and contractors under the direct supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.
2.20 “Qualified Interpreter” has the meaning set forth in the ADA and Section 504.
2.21 “Released Claims” means Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant as recited in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, and any and all counterclaims Defendant may have against Plaintiffs.
2.22 “Remedies” mean the remedies provided in Section 7 of this Agreement.
2.23 “Section 504” means 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. and its implementing regulations.
2.24 “Sign Language DVDs" means the videos regarding the Inmate Handbook, and Booking Process that provide information to deaf inmates via an interpreter using American Sign Language.
2.25 “Training Session” means the mandatory training Defendant shall institute pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Agreement.
3 TERM OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement shall commence from the date that the Court approves the dismissal and continue for a term of two years.
4 POLICIES AND TRAINING
4.1 Defendant shall implement the terms of this Agreement by adopting, maintaining and complying with written Sheriff’s Office Policies and Jail Division Post Orders, attached hereto as Exhibit C. Unless otherwise specified, Defendant shall comply with all terms of this Agreement, including implementation of the Sheriff's Office Policies and Jail Division Post Orders within 30 days from the date the Court approves the dismissal of the Civil Action.
4.2 Defendant shall institute one mandatory Training Session (approximately 2 to 3 hours) conducted by an organization with experience with regard to individuals who are deaf whereunder all of the Defendant’s Personnel that Contact the public on a routine basis undergo a training session, which shall provide detailed information concerning:
4

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 22
4.2.1 Detecting the presence of Auditory Disabilities;
4.2.2 The types of Auxiliary Aids and Services that exist and their respective efficacies; and
4.2.3 Defendant’s and Defendant’s Personnel’s obligations with respect to the provision of Auxiliary Aids and Services under State and Federal laws, and this Agreement.
4.2.4 All of Defendant’s Personnel required to take the Training Session shall have completed the Training Session no later than May 1, 2013.
4.3 Defendant shall, within ninety (90) days of the date the Court dismisses the case pursuant to Section 1.2 of this Agreement, revise its Sign Language DVD describing the steps in the booking process. The video will inform inmates who request the services of a sign language interpreter that interpreters will be made available for the following, and will provide instruction regarding how to make such requests:
booking and admission; medical appointments and screening; programs; work program training; formal disciplinary actions; and release.
4.4 Defendant shall amend the Inmate Handbook to include instructions regarding a Detained Individual’s rights under this Agreement, including information necessary for a Detained Individual to request the provision of Auxiliary Aids and Services, and information necessary for a Detained Individual to file a complaint, pursuant to Section 5.2 of this Agreement. The Handbook shall be amended to include information regarding how to request to review the Sign Language DVDs again.
4.5 Defendant shall show Detained Individuals with Auditory Disabilities a video of a Qualified Interpreter interpreting the entire Inmate Handbook, which shall be shown as soon as is practicable after the intake process and may be available for review again to Detained Individuals with Auditory Disabilities as soon as is practicable after such Detained Individual’s request to review it again.
4.6 Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days of the date the Court enters this Agreement, post conspicuous signs in the ACDF, all substations, and all locations
5

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 22
where Defendant or Defendant’s Personnel may routinely have Contact with members of the public advising individuals with Auditory Disabilities of the availability of Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters. Such signs shall contain following language, or its substantial equivalent:
To ensure effective communication with individuals who are deaf or hardof-hearing, the Sheriff will provide auxiliary aids, such as, TTYs, equivalent services, and sign language interpreters at no cost. Please ask a deputy for assistance.
4.8 Defendant agrees to purchase at least one videophone for use at ACDF. The videophone will be purchased and implemented within ninety (90) days after the planned upgrade to the internet/communication system is installed at ACDF. Defendant will prepare updates to Post Orders, the Inmate Handbook, and the DVDs explaining how deaf inmates can request use of the videophone.
5 VERIFICATION AND MONITORING
5.1 Defendant shall verify and monitor compliance with this Agreement as follows:
5.1.1 Defendant shall create and maintain a Compliance Log consisting of the following:
5.1.1.1 Identify (by initials or other traceable method) the CADIs Defendant or Defendant’s Personnel have Contacted and Detained;
5.1.1.2 Identify such CADIs that have requested Auxiliary Aids and Services, including the specific Auxiliary Aid or Service requested, if any.
5.1.1.3 Identify whether Auxiliary Aids or Services were offered to each such CADI.
5.1.1.4 Identify the type of Auxiliary Aid or Service Defendant provided to each such CADI.
5.1.1.5 If the type of Auxiliary Aid or Service Defendant provided differs from the type of Auxiliary Aid or Service a CADI has requested, Defendant shall state all reasons that the CADI was not provided with the Auxiliary Aid or Service the CADI requested.
5.1.1.6 If Defendant did not provide a CADI with Auxiliary Aids or
6

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 22
Services, Defendant shall state all reasons that the CADI was not provided with Auxiliary Aids or Services.
5.1.1.7 Identify any complaints, comments or concerns made by CADIs, or individuals associated with CADIs, regarding Defendant’s provision, or lack thereof, of Auxiliary Aids and Services to CADIs.
5.1.1.8 Copies of any kites regarding denial of effective communication.
5.1.2 Defendant shall provide the Compliance Log to the County Attorney’s Office on a quarterly basis for one year after the Effective Date.
5.1.3 The County Attorney’s Office will make the Compliance Log available for inspection to interested parties, including Plaintiffs' counsel.
5.2 In addition to creating and maintaining a Compliance Log, Defendant shall inform each and every CADI that, in the event such CADI believes he or she has been denied effective communication, such CADI may complete a kite or other written complaint regarding the denial. Copies of such kites/complaints shall be maintained and kept with the Compliance Log referenced in 5.1.3 above.
6 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any dispute between the Plaintiffs and Defendant concerning compliance with the terms of this Agreement will be addressed as follows:
6.1 If any Party has reason to believe that a dispute exists, prompt written notice will be provided to the other Party at the address provided in Section 10 of this Agreement. Notice regarding alleged non-compliance by Defendant shall be provided to the County Attorney’s Office.
6.2 Defendant will be given one week after notice to cure any non-compliance.
6.3 Within one week after receipt of the notice, counsel for the Parties will confer by telephone or in person and attempt to resolve the dispute. If Defendant has cured its non-compliance, the matter will be considered resolved.
6.4 If the conferral process does not occur or does not resolve the dispute, the matter may be submitted by either Party to the U.S. District Court as contemplated by Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).
7

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 22

6.5 If Plaintiffs are successful at convincing the Court that Defendant is not in compliance with the Agreement, Defendant will pay Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs incurred during the Dispute Resolution. If Plaintiffs bring a dispute to the Court and are not successful, Plaintiffs shall pay Defendant his reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs incurred during the Dispute Resolution process consistent with the standards for awarding reasonable fees and costs found in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22 (1978).

7 REMEDIES

If Defendant admits or the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado finds that Defendant has violated the terms of this Agreement, the following Remedies shall be available to Plaintiffs:

7.1 The Court may enjoin Defendant from engaging in the conduct determined to be a violation of this Agreement and order any and all appropriate relief to correct the violation.

7.2 Penalties:

7.2.1

If the violation concerned Defendant’s failure to acknowledge a CADI's Auditory Disability that is obvious or otherwise made known to the involved employee and failure to offer Auxiliary Aids or Services, then Defendant shall pay $1,000 in damages to CCDC.

7.2.2 If the violation concerned Defendant’s failure to provide the specifically requested Auxiliary Aid or Service in Non-emergency situations, then Defendant shall pay $2,500 in damages to CCDC.

7.2.3 If the violation concerned Defendant’s failure to provide any auxiliary aids or services after they were offered and accepted, then Defendant shall pay $5,000 in damages to CCDC.

8 MONETARY CLAIMS

Within ten (20) days of the date the Court dismisses the Civil Action, as contemplated in Section 1.2 of this Agreement, Defendant shall send a check in the amount of $100,000, made payable to the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program to the address in Section 10 of this Agreement.

8

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 22
9 RELEASES
9.1 Effective on the date that the Civil Action is dismissed as contemplated in Section 1.2 of this Agreement, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their executors, successors, heirs, assigns, agents, and representatives, in consideration of the relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, unconditionally and forever do fully and finally release, acquit, and discharge Defendant from the Released Claims.
9.2 Plaintiffs (on their own behalf and/or on behalf of any other person or entity and/or on behalf of or as a member of any alleged class of persons) further agree not to commence, maintain, prosecute or participate in any civil action, charge, complaint or proceeding of any kind against Defendant or its employees, agents, or attorneys in any court, or before any administrative or investigative body or agency (whether public, quasi-public or private), during the term of this Agreement, except as discussed in Section 6 of this Agreement. Moreover, in the event Plaintiffs have commenced any such civil action, charge, complaint or proceeding of any kind, Plaintiffs, without further consideration, shall take such action as may be possible to terminate such proceedings.
9.3 Effective on the date of entry of this Agreement, Defendant, in consideration of the relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, unconditionally and forever do fully and finally release, acquit and discharge Plaintiffs and their executors, successors, heirs, assigns, agents, and representatives, from the Released Claims.
10 COMMUNICATION TO THE PARTIES
Any notifications or communications required or permitted to be given to any party under this Agreement shall be given in writing by depositing it in the U.S. Mail, addressed as follows, and by e-mail:
To Defendant:
Heidi M. Miller Deputy County Attorney Adams County Attorney’s Office 4430 S. Adams County Parkway Brighton, Colorado 80601 hmiller@adcogov.org
9

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 22
To Plaintiffs:
Kevin W. Williams Andrew C. Montoya Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, Colorado 80202 kwilliams@ccdconline.org amontoya@ccdconline.org
If any of the above addresses change, it is the responsibility of the Party whose address is changing to give written notice of said change to the other Party within thirty (30) business days following the effective date of said change.
11 ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties and, upon entry of this Agreement and continuing thereafter, shall supersede all prior agreements, arrangements and understandings between the Parties. No representation, warranty, promise, inducement, or agreement (oral or otherwise) not set forth in this Agreement shall be binding upon all Parties.
12 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER OF AGREEMENT
No term or provision of this Agreement may be modified or extinguished, in whole or in part, except by a writing, which is dated and signed by all Parties. No waiver of any of the provisions or conditions of this Agreement or of any of the rights, powers or privileges of a party hereto shall be effective or binding unless in writing and signed by the party claimed to have given or consented to such waiver.
13 FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT; NO MISTAKE
13.1 The Parties acknowledge that they have communicated the terms of this Agreement with their respective attorneys in the Civil Action before signing this Agreement, that they were represented by their attorneys in the Civil Action in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement, that they understand each of the terms of this Agreement, and that they have knowingly and voluntarily signed this Agreement as their own free act, without coercion or duress.
13.2 The individual signing this Agreement on behalf of each Party agrees and acknowledges that he or she has the authority to bind that Party to this Agreement.
10

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 22
13.3 Each of the Parties forever waives all rights to assert that this Agreement was the result of a mistake or law or fact.
14 INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT Each Party acknowledges and stipulates that the compromise and settlement which forms
the basis of this Agreement has been arrived at after thoughtful bargaining and negotiation and represents a final mutually agreeable compromise of matters provided herein. This Agreement shall not be construed more strictly against one party than another merely by virtue of the fact that it may have been prepared by counsel for one of the parties, it being recognized that, because of arm’s-length negotiations between the Parties, all Parties hereto have contributed substantially and materially to the preparation of this Agreement. 15 HEADINGS
The headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only, do not constitute part of the Agreement and shall not limit, be used to interpret, or otherwise affect in any way the provisions of the Agreement. 16 EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute the same instrument.
11

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 22

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 22

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 22

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 22

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 22

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 22

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 22
Sign Language Interpreter?
EXHIBIT A 15

Case 1:11-cv-03074-JLK-BNB Document 35 Filed 09/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 22

Adams County Sheriff Request for Auxiliary Aid or Service Form

Inmate Name: _________________________________________________________________

Inmate Number: _______________________________________________________________

Date and time of request: ________________________________________________________

Has the inmate requested a specific Auxiliary Aid or Service?

Yes / No

If yes, specify the type of Auxiliary Aid or Service requested: _____________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________ Officer/Agent Name (Please Print Legibly)

________________________ Badge Number

Date and time request provided to Supervising Officer: ________________________________

____________________________________ Supervising Officer/Agent Name (Please Print Legibly)

________________________ Badge Number

What Auxiliary Aid or Service was provided? ________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

If the Auxiliary Aid or Service provided is different than what the inmate requested, state

why: ___________________________________________________________________

Date and time Auxiliary Aid or Service was provided: _________________________________

____________________________________ Officer/Agent Signature

____________________________________ Supervising Officer/Agent Signature

EXHIBIT B

16


[CONTENT] 2011 | 2012 | the Adams County Sheriff’s Department ||| May 2010 | two ||| two | English |||  |||  ||| second ||| Miranda ||| 25-day | the Adams County Detention Facility |||  |||  ||| November 23, 2011 | District Court | Colorado ||| the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition | two ||| the Sheriff of Adams County | Americans | the Rehabilitation Act ||| the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program ||| January 26, 2012 | two ||| One | American Sign Language ||| the Adams County Detention Facility | six days |||  ||| the Colorado Association of the Deaf ||| March 13, 2012 | John L. Kane | Magistrate | Boyd N. Boland ||| the next several months ||| September 25 |||  ||| 100,000 | the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program ||| September 27, 2012 | Kane | two years |||  ||| 2014 [SUMMARY] This case, filed in federal court in 2011 and settled in 2012, addressed the Adams County Sheriff’s Department and its communication with deaf inmates of its jail. 

The case’s complaint described an incident in May 2010 in which law enforcement was called on two individuals engaged in an argument. Neither of the two--who became the case’s individual plaintiffs--could speak, write, or read effectively in English. As a result, when Sheriff’s deputies arrived, the plaintiffs were not able to communicate or explain what had happened. Nonetheless, the complaint alleged that the deputies failed to provide a sign language interpreter or any other effective auxiliary aid. Instead, one of the individuals was arrested for allegedly hitting the second individual, despite the attempts by both to explain that no violence had occurred. While in custody, the arrestee was required to sign several forms that he did not understand, including a Miranda form acknowledging that he knew his rights. Throughout his 25-day detention at the Adams County Detention Facility, staff failed to provide him with appropriate auxiliary aids or services. He was unable to call anyone, to communicate during his medical intake, or understand why he was being detained.

This lawsuit followed. It was filed November 23, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. by the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition the two deaf individuals just described. The plaintiffs sued the Sheriff of Adams County in his official capacity under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Represented by the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program, they sought declaratory and monetary relief, and an injunction requiring the defendant to provide qualified sign language interpreters or other appropriate auxiliary aids or services to ensure effective communication with deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. 

On January 26, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added two additional individual plaintiffs. One was another deaf individual who communicated only through American Sign Language. He was detained at the Adams County Detention Facility for six days and unable to communicate during his detention. The other plaintiff was his aunt. The amended complaint also added the Colorado Association of the Deaf as a plaintiff.
 
On March 13, 2012, District Judge John L. Kane referred the case to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. The parties then spent the next several months engaging in settlement conversations. On September 25, they moved to dismiss the case because they had reached a settlement agreement.
 
The agreement required the defendant to change jail policies to ensure that detained individuals who required sign language interpretation knew how to request it. The settlement also required the defendants to provide training for staff, verify and monitor compliance with the agreement, and pay $100,000 to the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program. On September 27, 2012, Judge Kane granted the parties’ motion to dismiss the case and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement for two years. There are no further docket entries. The enforcement period was scheduled to end in 2014, so the case is now closed.