Policy vs. Practice: What RPD’s Interpreter Failure Reveals
RPD Interpreter Access Review Series – PSS Case 2024-0084
What Happened
On January 18, 2024, a Deaf motorist was involved in a traffic accident in Rochester, NY. Despite clearly identifying as Deaf and requesting an interpreter through 911 relay services, responding Officer Ryan Fantigrossi:
Did not provide a qualified interpreter
Relied on her daughter to relay messages (which is explicitly discouraged by RPD policy)
Spoke only to the daughter, not directly to the driver
Left her without the opportunity to actively participate in her own legal encounter, the driver's own words: "I felt ignored."
The Broader Concern: Institutional Shortcomings
This incident was reviewed by multiple levels of RPD leadership — including the Professional Standards Section, command staff, and Corporation Counsel — and was ultimately determined to involve no wrongdoing.
This outcome raises serious concerns about whether the department’s internal processes adequately recognize and address disability rights obligations.
Why This Matters for All Deaf Motorists
It Highlights a Vulnerability
If written policies prohibiting reliance on family members for interpretation are not enforced, Deaf motorists may face:
Exclusion from critical parts of police encounters
Miscommunications with legal consequences
Lack of access to their own rights and protections
Context Matters: Rochester and the Deaf Community
Rochester is home to one of the largest Deaf communities in the United States. Given this, the city has a heightened responsibility to ensure that communication accommodations are not only available, but actually used.
Pattern and Precedent
When clear violations are left unaddressed, it risks setting a precedent — within Rochester and beyond — that such practices are acceptable or legally defensible.
What's at Stake
For Individuals:
Understanding one’s legal situation during police encounters
Being able to speak and advocate for oneself directly
Retaining autonomy and dignity in stressful situations
For the Community:
Whether disability protections are consistently upheld
Whether policies are enforced or symbolic
Whether departments are accountable for their own procedures
For Legal Clarity:
Reinforcing that family members are not appropriate interpreters
Holding agencies accountable when training and policy fall short
Supporting strong ADA compliance across jurisdictions
Why Further Action May Be Warranted
✅ Documented Policy Concerns
RPD policy (General Order 517) discourages use of family members for interpretation
Federal ADA standards require effective communication
Body-worn camera footage and complaint documentation support the claim that communication was not effective
✅ Apparent Gaps in Oversight
There is no evidence the officer was interviewed regarding the decision not to secure an interpreter
The internal investigation does not appear to have acknowledged ADA-related policy implications
Follow-ups for clarity and comment have been ignored by RPD upper management. Not declined. Ignored as though they were never made.
✅ Potential for Broader Impact
Rochester’s practices may influence how other departments interpret their ADA obligations
A well-documented case could support education, advocacy, or legal reform
Final Thoughts
This case raises questions about how disability rights are implemented at a practical level within law enforcement. Even if the individual outcome cannot be reversed, the structural issues revealed here should not go unexamined.
Transparent Law Enforcement is releasing this case file in the public interest, in hopes that others — including legal experts, journalists, advocates, and community members — will carry this work forward.
Prepared by Transparent Law Enforcement - July 2025
Contact: admin@transparentlawenforcement.com
