Sign in Subscribe

RPD Fails to Provide Interpreter to Deaf Driver

Body-worn camera footage shows no interpreter was used. RPD closed the complaint based on a categorical interpretation of policy that exempted vehicle crash investigations from interpreter requirements.

Quick Summary

Driver signing what happened during a traffic accident
Driver signing what happened during a traffic accident

On January 18, 2024, a Deaf motorist was involved in a traffic accident in Rochester. A call to 911 was made via a Deaf relay service. The motorist was involved in a car accident and needed assistance. Upon arrival, the responding Rochester Police Department 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 supported the complainant's interpreter needs during the process.

This was not an isolated oversight by an individual officer, but the outcome of a formal review process. The Rochester Police Department's (RPD) 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 outcome was reviewed and approved through formal supervisory channels—raising critical questions: 

Who approved this outcome?

This case raises systemic concerns about how RPD communicates with Deaf motorists and whether every Deaf driver in Rochester is at risk of similar violations.

City’s Stated Rationale (PSS to Chief of Police):
“Department Members are not required to provide an interpreter to conduct a vehicle crash investigation… As a result, the complaint does not allege any violations of departmental policies or procedures.” — Lieutenant Jason Barton, Commanding Officer, Professional Standards Section

Professional Standards Section closed the complaint after determining—based on its interpretation of departmental orders, training materials, and consultation with Corporation Counsel—that officers are not required to provide an American Sign Language interpreter during a vehicle crash investigation.

On that basis, the matter was classified as an “Incident Review” and closed without interviewing the officer, obtaining a written statement, or generating investigative findings regarding how communication was conducted during the encounter.

That determination is inconsistent with RPD General Order 517, which requires officers to ensure effective communication with deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals during routine traffic stops and investigative interactions, expressly prohibits the use of family members or friends to interpret, and mandates securing a certified interpreter in situations where the legality of police–citizen conversations may be questioned in court proceedings. Traffic accident investigations routinely involve the collection of statements and observations that may later be relied upon in enforcement or litigation, and at the outset of such encounters an officer cannot know whether those communications will be subject to judicial scrutiny. Nevertheless, PSS adopted a categorical exemption based on incident type and closed the matter without assessing communication effectiveness or compliance with the Department’s own ADA policy.

The documents below provide the original case materials, internal correspondence, and analyses referenced in the sections above.

A. Narratives & Summary Documents

B. Official RPD Policy Documents (PDF)

C. Initial Starting Point (PDF)

In 2024 TLE requested complaint and disciplinary data from the RPD. This request was delayed multiple times and ended up being lumped in with the NYCLU's request and fulfilled once the NYCLU won a pivotal case (NYCLU v. Rochester Police Department) for transparency in law enforcement.

D. FOIL Correspondence & Public Records

This section contains the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests, responses, and appeals related to the Rochester Police Department’s handling of PSS 2024-0084.

Initial FOIL Request Appeal

BWC FOIL Request

E. Requests for Comment (PDF)

Investigation Status: Closed
Basis for Closure: City of Rochester certified that no additional records, footage, or investigative materials exist, and closed the complaint as an “Incident Review.”
Date: December 2025

Last updated: December 2025