When Mental Illness Meets an Active Shooter: The Fourth Circuit Draws the Line on ADA Liability

Morgan v. City of Charlotte, No. 23-1748 (4th Cir. June 29, 2026).

TL;DR

The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for officers who shot a mentally ill man after he repeatedly threatened neighbors, fired what appeared to be a real handgun into a residential neighborhood, and refused commands to disarm.

The court held that the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the City did not violate the ADA because officers made reasonable efforts to accommodate the suspect's known mental illness before the situation evolved into an active, life-threatening emergency.

The Facts

Bobby Morgan suffered from bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder. After threatening to shoot his neighbors, he called police while pretending to be a police officer himself. Responding officers quickly recognized that something was wrong and spent over eleven minutes attempting to calm him and discuss peaceful alternatives.

Those efforts failed.

Morgan repeatedly threatened to kill his neighbors, reached toward what appeared to be a handgun, retreated into his residence, and fired several shots. Officers established a perimeter rather than immediately entering the home.

Morgan's mother arrived and informed officers that he suffered from mental illness and insisted he did not possess a real firearm. Officers prevented her from entering the residence because of the obvious safety risks.

Over the next thirty minutes, Morgan emerged multiple times and repeatedly fired what officers reasonably believed was a functional handgun. Officers eventually returned fire after Morgan continued shooting into the neighborhood.

Only later did everyone discover that the pistol was actually a realistic prop gun capable of firing only blanks.

The ADA Claim

Unlike many excessive force cases, the plaintiff did not rely solely on the Fourth Amendment.

She also argued that the City violated Title II of the ADA by failing to reasonably accommodate Morgan's known mental illness.

Specifically, she argued officers should have:

• Continued de-escalation efforts;

• Allowed Morgan's mother to enter the residence;

• Contacted mental health professionals;

• Used additional crisis intervention measures rather than force.

The Fourth Circuit rejected each argument.

The Court Reaffirmed that the ADA Applies to Police Encounters

The court began by acknowledging an important principle that agencies sometimes overlook:

The ADA applies during police investigations and arrests.

Officers who know a suspect suffers from a disability must make reasonable accommodations for known physical or mental limitations when circumstances permit. The parties agreed Morgan qualified as an individual with a disability and that officers knew of his mental illness. The dispute centered entirely on whether the accommodations provided were reasonable.

This is significant because ADA claims are becoming increasingly common in police litigation, particularly when encounters involve mental illness, autism spectrum disorders, dementia, or behavioral crises.

Reasonableness—Not Perfection

One of the opinion's most useful observations is that the ADA does not impose a perfection standard.

Instead, it requires reasonable accommodations under the circumstances.

The court noted that officers actually spent considerable time attempting to calm Morgan before force was ever used.

Officer Ellis spoke with him for over eleven minutes, suggested peaceful alternatives, encouraged him to contact police rather than confront neighbors himself, and repeatedly attempted to keep the conversation productive.

Morgan rejected every suggestion, returned repeatedly to threatening homicide, and ultimately terminated the conversation himself before firing the first shots.

The court emphasized that an accommodation requires some level of participation by the individual involved.

When Morgan refused every attempt to engage in a workable solution, officers were not required to continue pursuing accommodations indefinitely.

Exigent Circumstances Change the Analysis

Perhaps the most important takeaway for agencies appears in one paragraph.

The court explained that once Morgan fired his weapon, the situation fundamentally changed.

"Accommodations that might be expected when time is of no matter become unreasonable to expect when time is of the essence."

This is an important litigation principle.

The ADA does not disappear during emergencies—but what qualifies as a reasonable accommodation changes dramatically once officers confront an immediate threat to life.

The court found that after Morgan began firing, officers did not immediately assault the residence. Instead, they:

• established a perimeter,

• waited more than thirty minutes,

• attempted to contain the situation,

• used deadly force only after Morgan repeatedly resumed firing.

Those actions, the court concluded, satisfied the ADA's reasonableness requirement.

Mental Health Professionals Are Not Always Required

The plaintiff also argued officers should have summoned mental health professionals and allowed Morgan's mother to intervene.

The Fourth Circuit relied heavily on its earlier decision in Waller v. Danville, rejecting what it viewed as hindsight criticism.

The court noted that similar arguments had previously been rejected because they undervalued the immediate danger confronting officers.

Importantly, the court stated:

"It is not incumbent on officers to convene a mental health clinic when other calming alternatives existed and were attempted, but all to no avail."

That sentence will almost certainly find its way into future police litigation.

It reinforces that agencies are expected to make reasonable efforts—not exhaust every conceivable resource before responding to an active threat.

The ADA and Fourth Amendment Often Rise or Fall Together

Another notable aspect of the opinion is the relationship the court drew between excessive force and ADA claims.

The Fourth Circuit observed that the two claims are closely intertwined.

Where officers' use of force is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff will often struggle to establish that officers simultaneously acted unreasonably under the ADA.

That does not mean every reasonable force case defeats an ADA claim. Rather, in rapidly evolving emergencies, the same facts supporting constitutional reasonableness frequently support ADA reasonableness as well.

Training Takeaways

For agencies, trainers, and supervisors, several lessons emerge:

• Recognize disabilities early. Knowledge of a mental illness triggers ADA considerations.

• Document accommodation efforts. Time spent communicating, slowing the encounter, involving specialized resources when feasible, and offering alternatives can become critical evidence.

• Understand that emergencies matter. Once a situation evolves into an immediate threat, reasonable accommodations may necessarily become more limited.

• The ADA does not require perfection. Courts evaluate whether officers acted reasonably—not whether another approach might have produced a better outcome in hindsight.

• Officer safety remains part of the equation. The ADA does not require officers to expose themselves or the public to unreasonable risks while attempting accommodations.

  
  

Street-Level Takeaway

This case reflects a trend that law enforcement agencies should be watching closely.

Plaintiffs increasingly view ADA claims as a second avenue for challenging police encounters involving mental illness—even where the underlying use of force may satisfy the Fourth Amendment.

That means agencies should ensure officers receive training not only on crisis intervention and de-escalation, but also on how those efforts should be documented. Courts are increasingly examining what accommodations officers attempted before force became necessary.

Morgan makes clear, however, that while the ADA requires officers to make reasonable accommodations when feasible, it does not require them to delay responding to an active, life-threatening threat or to employ every conceivable de-escalation tactic before acting. When a suspect repeatedly threatens to kill others, refuses all efforts at communication, and begins firing what reasonably appears to be a real firearm, the ADA does not transform an active shooter into a therapeutic encounter.

Disclaimer

This article is intended for educational and training purposes only and is not legal advice. Every use-of-force incident is fact-specific and must be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances known to the officers at the time. The discussion herein summarizes a judicial opinion and highlights training considerations for law enforcement professionals. It should not be interpreted as establishing policy, creating legal standards beyond those announced by the court, or predicting how other courts will rule under different facts. Agencies should consult applicable federal and state law, current case law, and their own policies when developing operational practices and training programs.