Monroe County Interpreter Access Audit

Executive Summary

Freedom of Information Law requests and a signed letter from the Chief of Police establish that the Gates Police Department maintains no written policy governing communication with Deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals during traffic stops or other roadside encounters.

The department also maintains:

• no interpreter service contracts or memoranda of understanding
• no departmental training documentation governing communication with Deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals
• no documented protocol governing interpreter access during field encounters

These findings are based on FOIL responses and a signed letter issued by Chief of Police Robert Long following a formal FOIL appeal.

Separately, a later FOIL request produced several Gates Police Department General Orders governing internal systems and operational documentation. These records confirm that the department maintains a functioning written policy framework. The absence of any general order addressing communication with Deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals therefore represents a specific governance gap within an agency that otherwise maintains written operational policies.

Public payroll records indicate that the Town of Gates employs 122 individuals, exceeding the fifty-employee threshold under 28 C.F.R. § 35.107, which requires designation of an ADA Title II coordinator and adoption of a grievance procedure.

The absence of documented interpreter access systems therefore exists within a municipality that maintains written operational policies but has not extended those governance structures to communication with Deaf or hard-of-hearing motorists.

This review reflects records produced and correspondence received during the audit period described below. No subsequent supplemental response was provided to Transparent Law Enforcement prior to publication.

This review is part of the Monroe County Interpreter Access Audit (MCIAA), an ongoing Transparent Law Enforcement project examining how local agencies document interpreter access for Deaf or hard-of-hearing motorists.

Records Produced

Transparent Law Enforcement submitted two FOIL requests relevant to this audit.

July 2, 2025 — Interpreter Access Request

The request sought records including:

• policies or general orders governing communication with Deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals
• training materials
• interpreter service agreements or memoranda of understanding
• public-facing materials for Deaf motorists

No written records responsive to these categories were produced.

December 3, 2025 — RMS/CAD Documentation Request

The Town produced five documents in response to this request, including:

• vendor scope of work for the Impact Records Management System
• General Order 106-21 — Records Management System
• General Order 457-18 — Technicians Function
• General Order 475-22 — Addendum Report Form

The existence of these General Orders confirms that the department maintains a functioning written policy framework governing certain operational and administrative matters.

Chief Long's Response

Following a FOIL appeal, Chief of Police Robert Long issued a signed letter dated July 29, 2025 addressing the department’s position.

The letter establishes three points on the record.

No written policy exists

Chief Long wrote:

“We do not have any formal written policies regarding communication with the deaf or hard of hearing within our general orders.”

Training records are not maintained by the department

The letter states that instruction on this topic occurs in the police academy and that records of that training are maintained by the academies attended by each officer.

Because the department maintains no training documentation and no written policy addressing this subject, it has no mechanism to determine what instruction officers received, when it occurred, or whether that instruction reflects current ADA Title II communication standards.

No interpreter agreements exist

The letter also states:

“We at the police department do not have any contracts or MOU’s for this service.”

Instead, the letter describes two mechanisms for interpreter access:

• services provided through Gates Justice Court
• radio requests to locate Monroe County officers who may be able to assist

Because this response was issued in a signed letter from the Chief of Police following a formal FOIL appeal, it represents the department’s institutional position rather than a routine records clerk response.

Governance Analysis

Policy Framework Gap

The December 2025 FOIL response produced multiple Gates Police Department General Orders governing internal systems and operational procedures.

These records establish that the department maintains a functioning written policy framework. The absence of any general order addressing communication with Deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals therefore represents a documented gap within an agency that otherwise maintains written operational policies.

While federal law does not mandate a specific policy format, written operational guidance is the primary mechanism by which law enforcement agencies translate ADA Title II effective communication requirements into field practice.

Without written guidance, there is no documented framework governing how officers are expected to provide effective communication during roadside encounters.

Training Governance Gap

Chief Long’s letter attributes communication training to the police academy.

Academy training reflects the curriculum in place at the time an officer attended. Without departmental policy or refresher training, the agency has no mechanism to ensure that instruction reflects current legal standards or operational expectations.

Because the department maintains no training documentation on this subject, it cannot verify:

• what instruction officers received
• when that training occurred
• whether the curriculum addressed ADA effective communication requirements
• whether officers have received updated instruction since academy graduation

An officer with fifteen years of service may therefore rely exclusively on academy instruction received more than a decade earlier.

Interpreter Access Structure

Chief Long’s letter describes two mechanisms for interpreter access:

• court interpreter services
• locating a sign-language-trained officer through county radio communications

Both mechanisms are availability-based rather than system-based.

Neither mechanism is governed by a documented protocol. No records were produced establishing:

• response time expectations
• qualification standards
• interpreter activation procedures
• documentation requirements

Court interpreter services exist to support judicial proceedings. No documentation was produced indicating that those services are available during roadside encounters or that officers are authorized to activate them during field interactions.

The letter therefore describes interpreter access as dependent on the availability of individual officers rather than activation of a defined system.

The phrase used in the Chief’s letter — officers responding “if they are able to do so” — illustrates this structure.

It describes not a system but a contingency.

A system produces predictable outcomes and documentation.
A contingency depends on circumstances and cannot be audited.

That analysis distinguishes between availability-based and design-based interpreter access models. In an availability-based model, communication access depends on who happens to be reachable at a given moment. In a design-based model, access depends on a predefined system with predictable activation.

Operational Communication Risk

Effective communication during roadside encounters affects several operational issues, including:

• comprehension of officer instructions
• consent to searches
• accuracy of statements
• clarification of ambiguous responses

Traffic stops are also subject to the constitutional constraints described in Rodriguez v. United States, which limits stop duration to the time reasonably required to complete the stop’s mission.

When interpreter access depends on locating an individual rather than activating a predefined system, stop duration can become influenced by interpreter availability rather than investigative necessity.

This does not automatically create a constitutional violation. It does introduce variability that is not mission-driven.

Structured interpreter systems reduce that variability by defining activation procedures, qualification standards, and response pathways in advance.

Qualification Ambiguity

FOIL responses referencing a “sign-language-trained officer” do not define what that designation means.

No documentation was produced establishing:

• certification requirements
• proficiency standards
• field qualification procedures
• ongoing evaluation requirements

Without documented standards, qualification becomes situational. The responding officer’s language ability may range from conversational familiarity to professional-level interpretation.

Because no records define the qualification standard, proficiency cannot be evaluated after the fact.

Auditability and Governance Transparency

Structured interpreter access systems generate operational artifacts such as:

• vendor contracts
• interpreter qualification standards
• activation procedures
• training records
• usage logs or call records

These records allow agencies and reviewing bodies to reconstruct what occurred during a particular encounter.

Availability-based systems generate no comparable documentation by default. When interpreter access depends on locating a sign-language-trained officer, there may be no record of who was contacted, how long the search took, what qualifications the responding officer possessed, or how communication decisions were made.

This absence is structural rather than incidental.

A governance system that produces no records cannot be meaningfully audited.

ADA Administrative Governance

Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.107, public entities employing fifty or more employees must:

• designate an ADA Title II coordinator
• adopt a grievance procedure

Public payroll records available through SeeThroughNY show that the Town of Gates employs 122 individuals, indicating that the municipality exceeds the regulatory threshold.

A FOIL request seeking records identifying the Town’s ADA Title II coordinator and grievance procedure produced no responsive records.

FOIL Process

July 2, 2025 — Initial request submitted

Transparent Law Enforcement submitted a FOIL request seeking policies, training materials, interpreter agreements, and public-facing materials relating to communication with Deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals.

July 25, 2025 — Initial response

Captain Matt Pascarella responded:

“We don’t have any policies regarding this.”

The response did not describe the scope of the records search or address additional categories identified in the request.

July 28, 2025 — FOIL appeal filed

Transparent Law Enforcement filed a formal appeal under Public Officers Law § 89(4)(a) requesting clarification of the search conducted and identifying record categories that had not been addressed.

July 29, 2025 — Chief Long’s letter

Chief Long transmitted a signed response through the Town Clerk acknowledging the appeal and providing the department’s position.

On the same date, Transparent Law Enforcement submitted a follow-up letter requesting:

• a certified search statement
• disclosure of any responsive training records
• documentation of how current practices comply with 28 C.F.R. § 35.160

August 11, 2025 — Counsel correspondence

Town attorney John DiCaro transmitted a written response stating that the Gates Police Department “does not have any formal written policies regarding communications with deaf and hard-of-hearing within their General Orders.” The correspondence further asserted that officers receive training in this area and indicated that the Gates Justice Court would provide a sign-language interpreter at the time of booking or arraignment if needed.

No policy materials, training records, interpreter service agreements, or other governance documents responsive to the FOIL request were produced with that correspondence.

Source Documents

• FOIL request — Interpreter Policy for Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Motorists (July 2, 2025)
• Initial FOIL response — Captain Pascarella (July 25, 2025)
• FOIL appeal — Transparent Law Enforcement (July 28, 2025)
• Chief Long letter (July 29, 2025)
• TLE follow-up letter — ADA deficiencies and certified search demand (July 29, 2025)
• FOIL request — RMS/CAD documentation (December 3, 2025)
• Town of Gates FOIL response — RMS/CAD (December 29, 2025)
• Town of Gates Attorney Email (August 11, 2025)
• Town of Gates Attorney Email Exchange (December 2025)

This review is part of the Monroe County Interpreter Access Audit (MCIAA), an ongoing Transparent Law Enforcement project examining how local agencies document interpreter access for Deaf or hard-of-hearing motorists.