IMPORTANT: My criminal case is still pending. This petition does not ask anyone to 
determine guilt or innocence, influence the judge, dismiss a charge, or interfere with 
the prosecution. It asks for broader policy review and reform.

 

Why I Am Starting This Petition
I am asking the Village of Allegany, local law enforcement, court administrators, and other 
appropriate oversight bodies to review policies involving mental-health crisis response, First 
Amendment rights, court accessibility, and fairness in the local justice system.
My concerns come from my own experiences with local government, law enforcement, 
mental-health crisis intervention, and a pending criminal case. Because that case is still 
before the court, this petition is not asking the public or government officials to decide my 
case. The court will decide the legal issues. This petition asks whether the systems 
surrounding these situations can be made clearer, safer, and fairer for everyone.

1. First Amendment Rights and Complaints to Public Officials
Residents have a constitutional right to criticize government, question police practices, 
complain to elected officials and petition government for change. Public officials are 
accountable to the communities they serve, and residents should be able to raise concerns 
without fearing that ordinary criticism or advocacy will automatically be treated as criminal 
conduct.

At the same time, the First Amendment does not protect true threats of violence. My concern 
is the need for a clear and careful distinction between protected criticism, persistent 
complaints, emotional speech, and conduct that actually satisfies the legal definition of a 
threat or crime.

I believe my own experience raises important First Amendment questions about where that 
line is drawn. I am asking for safeguards and clear policies so lawful complaints, advocacy, 
and criticism of government are not confused with criminal conduct merely because the 
message is uncomfortable or strongly worded.

2. Honesty During Mental-Health Crisis Calls
Police routinely ask people experiencing a mental-health crisis whether they are thinking 
about harming themselves or someone else. Under New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, 
police and certain peace officers may take a person into custody for an emergency mental
health assessment when the statutory criteria are met.

That creates an important question: How can a person answer honestly when an officer asks 
about thoughts of self-harm or harm to others without becoming afraid that what they 
disclose while seeking help could later be treated as criminal conduct?

People in crisis may cry, panic, become overwhelmed, experience intrusive thoughts, or say 
things impulsively that they do not intend to act upon. If someone voluntarily asks for help 
because they are afraid of what they are thinking or feeling, they should understand how 
officers distinguish among:

- an honest disclosure made while seeking mental-health assistance;
- an emotional or psychiatric outburst; and
- an actual threat, plan, or criminal act.

Therapists are not always available after hours. Crisis hotlines can involve wait times and 
may contact law enforcement when they believe someone is in immediate danger. That 
means police can become involved even when a person initially reaches out somewhere else.

People should not become afraid to answer 'yes' when they genuinely need help. A crisis
response system depends on honesty, and honesty depends on trust.

 

3. Mental-Health Training and Compassionate Policing
I have experienced officers who treated me with compassion, helped calm me down, 
encouraged me to stay in treatment and reminded me not to give up. Those experiences 
showed me that accountability and compassion can exist at the same time.
I have also experienced interactions that left me feeling stigmatized or afraid to seek help. 
That is why I believe officers should receive continuing education in crisis intervention, de-
escalation, communication, and mental-health awareness.

 

4. ADA Access and Meaningful Participation in Court
People with qualifying disabilities, including some mental-health disabilities, may request 
reasonable accommodations so they can meaningfully participate in court proceedings. The 
New York State Unified Court System recognizes that accommodations may include 
reasonable modifications to courtroom practices and procedures depending on the person's 
needs and circumstances.

Court users should be able to request accommodations without stigma and should receive 
clear information about how to ask for support, how requests are reviewed, and what to do if 
a request is denied.

5. Fairness, Consistency, and Public Confidence
The public should be able to understand how criminal cases are handled and why different 
cases may have different outcomes. Different cases can involve different facts, evidence, 
histories, victims, and legal issues, so identical outcomes are neither possible nor necessarily 
fair.

But transparency and consistency are still essential to public confidence. People should be 
able to trust that decisions are based on law, evidence, public safety, and legitimate 
prosecutorial or judicial considerations rather than status, personal relationships, or who is 
involved.

What I Am Asking For

I respectfully ask the appropriate local government, law-enforcement, court, and oversight 
bodies to:
- provide recurring mental-health and crisis-intervention training for officers;
- publish clearer guidance on how officers respond when a person voluntarily discloses 
suicidal, homicidal, or intrusive thoughts while seeking help;
-clearly distinguish crisis disclosures and emotional outbursts from conduct that 
constitutes a true threat or other criminal offense;
- protect residents' ability to criticize government and petition public officials without 
improper retaliation;
-strengthen transparency and fair review of complaints involving government officials;
- ensure court users with disabilities understand how to request ADA accommodations and 
how those requests are reviewed;
- provide clearer information about the proper channels for raising concerns about 
judicial, prosecutorial, police, or government conduct;
- and promote evidence-based, consistent decision-making that strengthens public 
confidence in local institutions.

Closing

My pending criminal case will be decided through the court process. This petition is not 
about demanding a particular verdict.

It is about making sure people can ask for help, criticize their government, 
participate meaningfully in court, and trust that the systems designed to serve 
the public are fair, transparent, accessible, and accountable.

Public Sources Referenced
    

• New York Courts - ADA Accommodation Request Process
  https://www.nycourts.gov/accessibility/ada-accommodation-request-process
  
•  People v. Wilson, 2026 NY Slip Op 50764(U) - discussion of 'true threat' versus angry 
  words/outburst
  https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_50764.shtml
• New York Courts - Reasonable ADA Accommodations for Court Users
  https://www.nycourts.gov/accessibility/reasonable-ada-accommodations-court-users
• New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41
  https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/MHY/9.41