context: Construing the facts in favor of Plaintiffs, the Court finds that they have stated a plausible claim for relief in regards to whether Taylor was denied benefits at the Mason jail. First, for the reasons explained above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim as to Taylor's denial of benefits during questioning, and finds that the case becomes even more compelling during investigative questioning at the jail and when being read his Miranda rights.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 539 F.3d 532, 532
citation_a.parenthetical: "[W]e find that the ADA applies to the post-arrest detention at the jail."
citation_a.sentence: See Tucker, 539 F.3d at 532 (“[W]e find that the ADA applies to the post-arrest detention at the jail.”); see also Calloway v. Boro of Glassboro Dep’t of Police, 89 F.Supp.2d 543, 555-56 (D.N.J.2000) (concluding that deaf individual deprived of benefit of providing information to the police concerning commission of crimes, in witness or suspect capacity, if not provided an interpreter during station-house questioning).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 89 F.Supp.2d 543, 555-56
citation_b.parenthetical: concluding that deaf individual deprived of benefit of providing information to the police concerning commission of crimes, in witness or suspect capacity, if not provided an interpreter during station-house questioning
citation_b.sentence: See Tucker, 539 F.3d at 532 (“[W]e find that the ADA applies to the post-arrest detention at the jail.”); see also Calloway v. Boro of Glassboro Dep’t of Police, 89 F.Supp.2d 543, 555-56 (D.N.J.2000) (concluding that deaf individual deprived of benefit of providing information to the police concerning commission of crimes, in witness or suspect capacity, if not provided an interpreter during station-house questioning).