How Title II of the ADA Applies

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits public entities—including state and local law enforcement—from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities. It requires reasonable modifications to policies and procedures unless those modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the activity or create an undue burden.

Federal courts have held that the ADA applies to the administration of field sobriety tests during DUI stops. Officers cannot simply ignore a known disability that prevents a driver from fairly performing balance or coordination tests. However, the roadside setting of a DUI investigation involves significant public-safety exigencies that limit what counts as a “reasonable” accommodation.

Key Federal Appellate Decisions

Several federal appellate decisions have shaped how the ADA interacts with NHTSA SFSTs:

• In Bircoll v. Miami-Dade County, 480 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 2007) (full opinion available at https://storage.courtlistener.com/harvard_pdf/77631.pdf), the Eleventh Circuit—binding precedent in Georgia—applied Title II of the ADA to field sobriety testing of a deaf driver. The court held that waiting for an oral interpreter before conducting the tests was not a reasonable modification given the exigencies of a roadside DUI stop, the need for prompt action to protect public safety, and the short, demonstrable nature of the tests. Communication does not have to be perfect.
• In Windham v. Harris County, 875 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2017) (full opinion available at https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-20686-CV0.pdf), the Fifth Circuit applied the full Title II failure-to-accommodate analysis to SFSTs (including the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test) involving a driver with a neck condition. The claim failed because the driver never made a clear and definite request for a specific accommodation, and the officers lacked sufficient knowledge of the precise limitations.
• In Mayfield v. City of Mesa, 131 F.4th 1100 (9th Cir. 2025) (full opinion available at https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/24/23-3222.pdf), the Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion for a deaf driver. Citing Bircoll, the court held that an ASL interpreter was not a required reasonable accommodation under the circumstances of the traffic stop and subsequent testing.

These cases confirm that the ADA applies to NHTSA field sobriety evaluations. At the same time, they demonstrate that courts give substantial weight to officer safety and the need to quickly assess whether a driver is safe to continue operating a vehicle. Vague mentions of a medical condition are usually not enough; a clear request or an obvious need is typically required.

Practical Implications for Georgia Drivers

If you have a disability that affects balance, coordination, vision, or the ability to follow complex instructions:

• Clearly and specifically inform the officer about your condition and how it affects your ability to perform the tests.
• Request a reasonable alternative if possible (for example, greater reliance on HGN or chemical testing).
• Understand that officers may still administer the tests and that courts rarely find an ADA violation solely because of how roadside SFSTs were conducted.
• Remember that the ADA does not protect current illegal drug use or driving while impaired. Alcoholism can qualify as a disability in other contexts, but it does not create a right to drive under the influence.

In the criminal case, the stronger argument is often that the SFSTs were unreliable under NHTSA standards because of your disability, rather than that the ADA was violated. Body-camera footage, the officer’s failure to inquire about physical problems, and proper documentation of your medical condition can all become powerful tools in your defense.