Policy vs. Practice: What RPD’s Interpreter Failure Reveals

PSS Case 2024-0084 - Rochester Police Department

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