When circumstances safely permit, the ADA requires police officers to make reasonable accommodations for known mental illnesses. In Morgan v. City of Charlotte, the 4th Circuit ruled officers reasonably accommodated an armed man during a prolonged standoff before using deadly force. The decision confirms the ADA does not require officers to indefinitely delay action while a person poses an immediate danger to the public.
Morgan v. City of Charlotte, 2026 WL 1856998 (4th Cir. 2026)
More officers are finding themselves defending not only Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims, but also allegations they violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during encounters with individuals suffering from mental illness. Morgan v. City of Charlotte helps officers understand that while the ADA does apply to law enforcement, it requires reasonable accommodations — not unreasonable risks.
Police officers in Charlotte, North Carolina, responded after Bobby Morgan, who suffered from bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder, threatened to shoot his neighbors. During an extended encounter, officers spent more than 11 minutes talking with Morgan, trying to calm him, suggesting peaceful ways to resolve the dispute, and encouraging him to cooperate. Instead, Morgan repeatedly threatened violence, retreated into his home, and began firing what appeared to be a semiautomatic pistol into the neighborhood. Although the gun ultimately proved to be a prop that shot only blanks, it looked, sounded, and functioned like a real firearm. After Morgan repeatedly fired the weapon and ignored commands to surrender, officers shot and seriously wounded him.
“The ADA does not require officers to ignore immediate threats, prolong dangerous situations indefinitely, or place themselves or innocent citizens at unreasonable risk.”
Morgan’s mother argued the city violated the ADA by failing to provide reasonable accommodations for his mental illness. The 4th Circuit disagreed.
The court began by reaffirming an important principle: The ADA applies to police investigations and arrests. Officers who know a person has a physical or mental disability must make reasonable accommodations when circumstances permit. But the ADA does not require officers to ignore immediate threats, prolong dangerous situations indefinitely, or place themselves or innocent citizens at unreasonable risk.
The court pointed to numerous accommodations the officers actually attempted. They spent considerable time talking with Morgan, tried to redirect the conversation away from violence, suggested peaceful alternatives, and established a perimeter instead of rushing into the house. They waited more than 30 minutes before using deadly force, and fired only after Morgan resumed shooting into a residential neighborhood. In the court’s words, “The ADA requires reasonableness, not perfection.”
One important lesson is that the ADA does not replace the Fourth Amendment. Officers should recognize and reasonably accommodate known disabilities whenever it is safe to do so. However, when a person creates an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, the ADA does not require officers to continue accommodations that would place themselves or others in greater danger. Mental illness is one factor in the totality of the circumstances — not a shield against objectively reasonable police action.
Timely legal analysis on law enforcement-related cases: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
The practical takeaway is straightforward. Officers should recognize known disabilities, slow situations down whenever it is safely possible, communicate calmly, consider available accommodations, and document those efforts in their reports. Those steps not only improve outcomes, they also demonstrate the reasonableness that both the Fourth Amendment and the ADA require.
- Blog Articles
