By Michael Phillips

With review and ADA analysis by Renata (“Ren”) DeMello, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Support for Giselle Smiel

Editor’s note: This article draws on documents, call logs, and emails provided by ADA advocate Renata DeMello. Personal medical details have been redacted. Statements attributed to staff or officials are reported as allegations unless supported by written correspondence.

A Machine Built to Miss the Point

Giselle Smiel is a survivor—of domestic violence and of a legal-bureaucratic machine that too often reads invisible disability as defiance. On September 4, 2025, she was booked into Las Colinas Detention & Reentry Facility (LCDRF) in San Diego County. More than two weeks later, she still had no meaningful access to ADA Title II accommodations. Records and emails show multiple written requests beginning September 5 and continuing through September 19, when she was transferred to Los Angeles County’s Century Sheriff’s Station; the jail never issued the written determination required by 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 when denying those accommodations.

This isn’t just about one woman—or about ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ It’s what happens when public entities act as if invisible disabilities don’t count, effective communication is optional, and retaliation replaces accommodation.

An Invisible Disability Is Still a Disability

Like many survivors of long-term abuse and strangulation, the harms Giselle carries are often functional—affecting memory, concentration, processing under stress, and sleep. Under Title II of the ADA and 28 C.F.R. Part 35, public entities must ensure effective communication (§ 35.160), provide reasonable modifications (§ 35.130(b)(7)), and avoid punitive responses in custody settings (§ 35.152). The standard does not require visible injury; cognitive and psychiatric impairments qualify when they substantially limit major life activities (§ 35.108). In practice, that means simple, low-burden supports: a quiet consult window, plain-language advisals, and brief pre-/post-decision calls with her ADA support person. Those exact supports were requested in writing.

Instead, she spent three days in lockdown after a purported “refusal” during DNA collection—a foreseeable breakdown when effective-communication supports aren’t in place. According to the advocate’s timeline, the jail later obtained a DNA swab anyway, and a related misdemeanor was dismissed after the advocate flagged the ADA and due-process issues to the Public Defender, Logan Rand, who pursued relief. The sequence suggests the “refusal” reflected systems failure, not criminal intent.

A Medical Pretext—Or No Process At All

According to the advocate, Ms. Smiel’s intake lacked any trauma-informed screening for cognitive or psychiatric impairments, and the jail did not issue the written determination required by 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 identifying the decision-maker, rationale, and effective alternatives. That paper trail is mandatory when a request is refused; without it, denials become invisible and accountability evaporates. To date, the County’s pattern amounts to a “ghosting effect”—acknowledgment without engagement: complaints get case numbers, but no § 35.164 determinations, no interactive process, and no remedial measures materialize.

Where Were the People In Charge of Compliance?

The advocate took this to Todd Hood, the County’s ADA Coordinator, and Branden Butler, who leads Ethics, Compliance & Labor Standards. Both were cc’d from day one. On Sept. 18, Hood sent the complaint back to the Sheriff’s ADA unit—the very office named in the allegations—while issuing a case number; Ms. DeMello objected and demanded action. Title II requires a coordinator and prompt, equitable grievance procedures (§ 35.107). The advocate asked Hood to open a County grievance and order interim effective-communication steps. By Sept. 19, Butler hadn’t responded. In practice, the County created a loop: acknowledgment without intervention, and no corrective implementation before transfer—putting Ms. Smiel at ongoing risk.

Formal Complaints Filed—Then Sidelined

A Title II complaint was filed through the County’s ethics/compliance portal detailing, among other issues, no trauma-informed intake, no § 35.164 written denials, barriers to effective communication, and retaliation concerns. The advocate also requested that the County provide Ms. Smiel with clear instructions for filing an ADA grievance. During a tier-release call on September 18, 2025, the advocate spoke with Ms. Smiel, who reported she had received no such instructions.

The filings further requested a litigation hold, an interim ADA Communication & Anti-Retaliation Plan, and a portable ADA plan to travel with the detainee upon transfer—specific, low-burden steps LCDRF could have implemented immediately.

Retaliation Is Not a Policy—It’s a Violation

When disability-linked behavior is punished after accommodations are refused, the response isn’t “discipline”—it’s retaliation, prohibited by 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 and 42 U.S.C. § 12203. Those provisions bar coercion or interference against the individual and anyone assisting them. The advocate’s plan spelled this out: use of ADA supports may not be labeled “manipulation” or used as a basis for discipline, and any discipline tied to ADA barriers should be reviewed and expunged/annotated.

And Still, She Waits

By the time San Diego transferred Giselle to Los Angeles County’s Century Station (15 days after her arrest), no portable ADA plan was included in her transport packet, and no written rationale explained the prior denials—practices that all but guarantee repeated harm. The requested accommodations—quiet pre-/post-consults, non-dayroom access for ADA calls, plain-language advisals with teach-back, and a single command-level point of contact—are routine in trauma-informed systems and take minutes to implement.

This is what modern civil-rights violations can look like: not with spectacle, but with silence, bureaucracy, and deliberate indifference.

Because if this can happen to a documented survivor with an advocate and a paper trail, it can happen to anyone.

Public Action Toolkit

1)  Public comment email (copy/paste)

To: Katie.McKnight@sdcounty.ca.gov; Todd.Hood@sdcounty.ca.gov; Branden.Butler@sdcounty.ca.gov CC (optional, for community tracking): metoomoms.ada@proton.me

Subject: Public Comment for Record — ADA Title II in County Custody Hello Ms. McKnight, Mr. Hood, and Mr. Butler,

Please record the following as public comment and include it in the public notes/minutes. If another office logs public comment, please forward this message and confirm.

I am concerned about ADA Title II compliance in San Diego County custody settings. Specifically:

• lack of trauma-informed intake;
• failure to issue required 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 written determinations when accommodations are denied;
• barriers to effective communication; and
• retaliation against individuals and those who assist them (28 C.F.R. § 35.134; 42 U.S.C. § 12203).

I respectfully request that the County:

1. provide detainees clear, written instructions for filing ADA grievances (at intake and posted in housing units);
2. issue § 35.164 written denials whenever ADA requests are refused (identify the decision-maker, rationale, and effective alternatives);
3. publish quarterly summaries of ADA complaints and outcomes for custody settings; and
4. train all custody and medical staff on ADA Title II—including invisible disabilities and effective communication—at onboarding and at least annually, with refreshers after any substantiated incident.

Please confirm receipt and advise where this comment will appear in the public record.

Sincerely,
[Name]
[City]

(Optional: If you CC metoomoms.ada@proton.me, your comment may be counted anonymously for community tracking.)

---

2)  Backup — “force a record” CPRA follow-up (plain text)

Subject: CPRA Request — ADA Title II Records (LCDRF, Sept 1–Oct 15, 2025) Hello,

Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.), please provide:

1. All 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 written determinations issued by LCDRF between Sept 1–Oct 15, 2025 (identify decision-maker, rationale, and alternatives offered).
2. Current policies and training materials on effective communication in custody (ADA Title II, e.g., § 35.160), including lesson plans, slide decks, handouts, completion logs, and attendance records.
3. ADA grievance logs/trackers for the same period (counts, dates received/closed, outcome codes; names may be redacted).
4. Transfer packet templates/forms, including any portable ADA plan and/or ADA transfer rider used during detainee transfers.
5. Any record showing where my public comment dated [TODAY’S DATE] is logged or scheduled for inclusion in the public record/agenda notes.

Format & fees: Please produce records electronically by email (Gov. Code § 6253.9). If any portion is withheld, provide the specific statutory exemption(s) and release all segregable non-exempt portions (Gov. Code § 6253(a)). Fees are limited to direct duplication costs (Gov. Code § 6253(b)).

Custodian: If your office is not the custodian, please forward this request to the proper custodian and advise who that is.

Timing: Please acknowledge receipt and provide the 10-day determination (Gov. Code § 6253(c)); extensions should state the reason. A tracking/reference number is appreciated.

Thank you,
[Your Name]
[Email for production]
[Optional: Mailing address]
[Optional: Phone]

---

3)  Two quick phone calls (script)

Hi, I’m submitting a public comment on ADA Title II in County custody. Please ensure detainees:

1. receive clear instructions to file ADA grievances,
2. get § 35.164 written determinations when requests are denied (who decided, why, alternatives), and
3. have effective-communication access (quiet consults, plain-language advisals, brief pre/post-decision calls).

Please log my comment. Thank you.

---

4)  Short public records request (copy/paste)

I request, for Sept 1–Oct 15, 2025:

• All § 35.164 written determinations issued by LCDRF;
• Current effective communication policies/training (Title II);
• ADA grievance logs (counts, dispositions);
• Transfer packet templates, including any portable ADA plan/ADA transfer rider. Electronic delivery preferred.

---

5)  Meeting-watch one-minute remark

Please require § 35.164 written denials, adopt a portable ADA plan for transfers, publish quarterly ADA complaint outcomes, and confirm detainees receive clear instructions to file ADA grievances.

---

6)  Share safely (social posts)

• ADA isn’t optional in jail. § 35.164 = written denial + alternatives. Ask your county to publish quarterly ADA outcomes.
• Effective communication is a right, not a favor: quiet consults, plain-language advisals, brief pre/post calls.
• Retaliation is illegal under 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 / 42 U.S.C. § 12203—including against those who help.

---

Sources: advocate call logs and redacted emails (Sept. 4–19, 2025); County Ethics & Compliance Report ID 2509-SDCO-40011; correspondence with LCDRF ADA/medical staff; transfer notifications to Century Station. Statutes and regulations cited: 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104, 35.107, 35.108, 35.130, 35.134, 35.152, 35.160, 35.164; 29 U.S.C. § 794.

Deliverability tips

• Send plain text; avoid attachments/links on first contact.
• BCC yourself for a timestamped copy.
• Ask for a receipt and where it will be logged.
• If no reply is received within 3–5 business days, send the CPRA follow-up as outlined above.