Interpreter Refused: A Deaf Driver, RPD Policy, and the Fight for Communication Rights
RPD Interpreter Access Review Series – PSS Case 2024-0084
Introduction
In February 2024, Lan the complainant, a Deaf driver, was involved in a traffic accident in Rochester, NY. She contacted 911 using a relay service—a clear indicator of her need for communication accommodations. But when officers from the Rochester Police Department arrived, no interpreter was provided.
This post outlines what happened, what went wrong, and how Transparent Law Enforcement is working to challenge RPD’s deeply flawed policy on communication with Deaf and hard-of-hearing residents.
The Incident
The complainant call to 911 was made via a Deaf relay service. She was involved in a car accident and needed assistance. Upon arrival, the responding officer, Ryan Fantigrossi, did not offer or attempt to obtain an ASL interpreter. Instead, he conducted the interaction without any formal accommodations.
An internal complaint (PSS Case 2024-0084) was filed. Deaf Refugee Advocacy [https://www.deafrefugeeadvocacy.org/] supported the complainant during the process.
The Complaint and Its Investigation
This was not a minor oversight. The RPD’s Professional Standards Section (PSS) devoted substantial resources to this case: scheduling interpreters, conducting a formal stenographic interview with the complainant, and compiling internal documentation. Despite this investment of time and public funds, the case was dismissed without discipline, and without even interviewing the officer involved.
This was not one officer making a field error. A formal complaint was filed, reviewed, and signed off on—raising critical questions: Who approved this outcome? Who interpreted the policy in a way that contradicts both ADA standards and internal guidelines?
The internal PSS investigation ultimately claimed the following:
RPD claimed that interpreters are only required if the incident may lead to court.
They also stated that the complainant "never explicitly requested an interpreter"—despite initiating contact via relay.
No stenographic interview of Officer Fantigrossi was conducted.
There is no mention of reviewing body-worn camera (BWC) footage, even though it exists.
The investigation concluded with no discipline, no findings of wrongdoing, and no acknowledgment of policy failure.
The Policy
The Rochester Police Department justified its denial of an interpreter by claiming that interpreters are only required when an interaction is likely to result in court proceedings. However, this interpretation is not supported by their own written policy—specifically, General Order 517, Section II.8.
The policy makes clear that while brief, simple interactions may sometimes proceed without a certified interpreter, this only applies when there are no legal implications. The moment there is a possibility that the communication could be used in legal proceedings—such as a traffic accident report—the policy explicitly requires steps be taken to ensure effective communication, including obtaining a certified interpreter.
In this case, the interaction involved a car accident, a potential civil or criminal matter, and clearly met the threshold where interpretation services should have been provided. The complainant used a relay service to contact 911, indicating from the outset that she is Deaf. Nonetheless, no interpreter was called, and no documentation shows that one was even considered.
This reveals not just a misapplication of policy but a systemic misinterpretation that contradicts both RPD’s written directives and federal disability law.
This policy failure:
Puts Deaf residents at a disadvantage in nearly all police encounters.
Assumes officers—not the individual—decide when communication rights matter.
Treats relay use and obvious communication barriers as optional to accommodate.
What We’re Doing
Transparent Law Enforcement is taking several actions:
We’ve submitted FOIL requests for body-worn camera footage and additional documentation.
We’ve have submitted a request for comment on the policy and the complaint investigation. We received no response or acknowledgement. We have followed-up hoping the RPD will provide open and transparent answers to our questions.
We are reaching out to the Deaf Refugee Advocacy,, and other disability rights organizations.
We’re exploring a challenge to the policy through the Division of Human Rights (DHR)—if an individual or organization with standing is willing to file.
We are publishing this case to raise awareness and connect it to broader patterns of disability discrimination in police practice.
Conclusion
Rochester is home to one of the largest most vibrant Deaf communities in the United States. The failure to provide an interpreter in this case is not just a mistake—it’s a systemic failure enabled by a policy that must change.
If you or your organization is interested in supporting this effort, please reach out.
Further updates will follow as records are released and the advocacy effort develops.
