[NFBF-L] Why Pack the Courtroom with Service Dogs?

Tue Oct 22 18:14:17 UTC 2019

          There's more to the saga of my guide dog being intentionally
interfered with at Tampa's Winston Park while we were on a casual shopping
trip. The arraignment was first to be held on June 20; however, Michael
Reagan was incarcerated on a separate offense, so the arraignment had been
postponed. I was unaware of this and attended Court. What happened in the
courthouse was, perhaps, more shocking than the intentional attack by Mr.
Reagan. Below is a letter I wrote to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's
Office sharing this incident. After reading this letter, you will understand
why we need to pack the courtroom with service dogs!

June 20, 2019

Detective Jennifer Sands

Professional Standards Section

Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office

2008 East 8th Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33605

Dear Det. Sands,

          Thank you for the time you took to speak with me this afternoon. I
am writing to express my concerns over the manner in which I was treated by
Judge Manning and his staff, including his bailiff and Master Sargeant James
Escobio  on Thursday, June 20, 2019. It may be valuable to understand that
This sort of dismissive, offensive, and condescending attitude is typical of
the conduct we experience nearly every time we attempt to protect our civil
rights. It is our hope that this incident will attract the attention of
those who are as offended with the treatment as I! On the aforementioned
date, I attended Court to observe the proceedings of a case in which I am
the plaintiff. When I exited the elevator to make my way to Courtroom 300,
what I assume was another service dog lunged and barked at my dog. As I was
making my way to the courtroom, I noticed there was another service dog in
the aisle when I heard the handler tell the dog, "Leave it!". While standing
outside the courtroom, a male approached me and asked me to follow him. I
asked what this was about and was told he was escorting me to the podium to
hear my case. I told him I did not have a case; I was only there to observe.
He advised me that I could not be in the courtroom because there might be
other service dogs and they did not want to have a fight. I advised him
that, should there be an altercation, the offending dog should be removed
and I should not be restricted from sitting in the courtroom. He told me
there was a safety issue and I replied that this safety issue did not
involve me. I told him at that time that not permitting me to sit in the
courtroom with my guide dog was a violation of state and federal law and he
reiterated his safety concern. I told him I intended to sit in the courtroom
and observe the proceedings. He again stated he was not discriminating
against me, it was for safety reasons. I advised him he could not assume
there would be a problem and he could only remove a service dog if it were
out of control or it posed a direct threat. He stated, "So, we need to wait
until there's a dog fight?" I advised him there was no evidence there would
be any problems and again stated I felt his behavior was discriminatory. He
begrudgingly relented and told me I could have a seat. Since the courtroom
was empty except for the Court staff, I told him I would wait outside with
the rest of the people until Court began. I left the room and stood outside
the courtroom.

          I called the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and got the
number for the Bailiff's office. I explained my concern to the person who
answered and was told a supervisor would come to speak with me. A few
minutes later, someone who identified himself as "James" (Master Sargeant
James Escobio)  approached me. I explained what happened. He had apparently
already spoken with the first person, since he asked me if I was offered a
seat in the courtroom. When I stated I was offered a seat and why I refused,
he asked what the problem was. I told him the person's behavior was
discriminatory in violation of state and federal law. He replied, "I'm sorry
you feel that way!" then turned his back to me and walked away. I then
telephoned the bailiff's office again, asked to speak with a ranking deputy,
and was connected to lt. Brown. I again explained my concerns, the manner in
which I was treated by Sgt. Escobio, and she promised to investigate it.
When I finally entered the courtroom, I believe it was Sgt. Escobio who
asked me for my name, stating he was writing a report about the incident.

          I observed the Court proceedings but the case I was there to hear
was not on the docket. As I stood to leave, the judge asked if I had
business with the Court. I stated I thought I did but the case was not
heard. I began to leave the courtroom but decided I would address this issue
with the judge and asked his permission to do so. When I explained the
incident and told him I felt I was discriminated against and treated in a
very dismissive manner, Judge Manning began interrogating me. I use the term
"Interrogating" rather than "questioning" because I felt the tone of the
judge's voice was very accusatory. He asked me if I was in the courtroom
when he entered and I replied I was. He asked if I was afforded the
opportunity to observe all the proceedings and I answered I was. "Now we are
done and you are still here. How is that discriminatory?" Judge Manning
asked. I asserted that my ability to successfully advocate for myself did
not absolve or lessen the impact of the bailiff's discriminatory behavior.
He stated his staff was only ensuring the safety of others and he did not
understand why I was upset. About this time, my dog yawned and let out a
little sigh. The judge heard it and said, "See!", though I am not sure of
the relevance of this remark though I took it as an attempt to shift the
blame for the incident to me. I told him I had nothing more to say and
intended to file a formal complaint. He advised me to include in my
complaint that I was in the courtroom during the whole proceedings. Because
of the judge's conduct toward me, I am also concerned that the judge will be
biased on the case I intended to observe in his courtroom when it is heard.

          The Hillsborough County Courthouse is a public entity under Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 USC 12115(1)(A)). I am a
"qualified individual with a disability" (42 USC 12115(2)). My dog is a
"service dog" as defined by the implementing regulations of the ADA (28 CFR
Section 35.104). Public entities are required to modify their policies,
practices, and procedures to permit the use of a service animal by a person
with a disability (28 CFR Section 35.136(a). 

 ). My guide dog was under control (28 CFR Section 35.136(b) on a tether and
harness 28 CFR Section 35.136(d) and exhibited no behavior that could be
construed as a "direct threat" (42 USC 12182(3)). By attempting to restrict
my access to the courtroom, Judge Manning's staff attempted to require me to
accept an "unequal benefit in violation of the ADA (42 USC 12182(b)(1)(A)).
Should Judge Manning treat the case in which I am the victim in a biased
manner because I have opposed an act or behavior prohibited by the ADA, such
bias would also be considered retaliatory and, therefore,  discriminatory
(42 USC 12203).

          In addition to the federl law cited above, Florida law provides
that disabled individuals have the right to full and equal access to all
public accommodations (413.08(2) f.s.) and have the right to be accompanied
by a service dog (413.08(3) f.s.). Violation of this florida statute is a 

second degree misdemeanor (413)08(4) f.s.).

The bailiff, Sgt. Escobio, and Judge manning all treated me in a
discriminatory manner when all I was attempting to do was to exercise my
rights as a citizen. When I opposed their attempts to treat me in a
discriminatory manner, I was met with arrogance, dismissiveness, and
disrespect. In fact, though Judge Manning seemed to extend understanding and
compassion to those who had violated the law, the same understanding and
compassion was not afforded one whose only transgression was to protect and
secure my civil rights, something completely unexpected and offensive in a
Court of law in which an individual's civil rights should be affirmed, not
dismissed. I strongly encourage those who have the authority to remedy this
situation so it does not occur to someone else and take corrective measures
to make this situation a learning experience for all. If I can facilitate
this process, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me. My contact
information is below my signature.

Respectfully yours,

Marion Gwizdala, President

National Association of Guide Dog Users Inc.

National Federation of the Blind

(813) 626-2789

President at NAGDU.ORG

          The National Federation of the Blind knows that blindness is not
the characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise the
expectations of blind people because low expectations create obstacles
between blind people and our dreams. You can live the life you want!
Blindness is not what holds you back.