Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
New Mexico court staff trained on identifying service animals and courtroom accommodations
Loading...
Summary
A New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts webinar featured Gemini Schell of the New Mexico Governor's Commission on Disability explaining the ADA two-question test for identifying service animals, distinctions from housing and airline rules, state law nuances, and common courtroom scenarios including jury visibility and security screening.
Gemini Schell, a disability specialist with the New Mexico Governor's Commission on Disability, told court staff that when an animal's role is not obvious they may ask only two questions to determine whether it is a service animal: "Is this animal required due to a disability?" and "What task or work has this animal been trained to perform for you?" Schell made the remarks during a training session hosted by the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts.
The training focused on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Titles II and III — which cover state and local governments and public accommodations — and how those federal rules intersect with the Fair Housing Act, the Air Carrier Access Act and New Mexico's own Service Animal Act. "Allowing service animals is considered a reasonable modification of a no-pets policy," Schell said, underscoring that courts must accommodate service animals when handlers meet the legal criteria.
Why it matters: courtrooms regularly encounter people with visible and invisible disabilities and must apply consistent assessments without probing medical details. Schell warned staff they may not ask for proof of disability, demand certification, or require paperwork, and that "there are many organizations online that sell people these certifications" but such documents do not substitute for the two-question assessment.
Details and legal distinctions: Under Titles II and III the ADA defines service animals as dogs — and in some circumstances miniature horses — "individually trained to perform tasks or work for the benefit of a specific person with a disability." Schell contrasted that with the Fair Housing Act's broader definition of "assistance animals," which can include emotional-support animals used in housing contexts. She also summarized the Air Carrier Access Act's 2020 update, which aligns airline rules with the ADA's narrower service-animal definition and allows carriers to require certain documentation in limited circumstances.
State law: Schell reviewed the New Mexico Service Animal Act (2013), which parallels the ADA and adds protections — including for animals in training — but said enforcement has been rare. "Any violation is a misdemeanor with fines up to 1000 dollars or a year in jail," she said, while noting that in practice the ADA and state enforcement are often limited.
Limits on questioning and evidence: When a disability or the animal's task is not obvious, staff are limited to the two questions; Schell said staff "cannot ask the person about their disability or for proof of a disability" and "cannot ask for service animal certification, paperwork, or registration." If the answers to the two questions clearly establish an active task tied to a disability, the staff may not follow up with additional inquiries.
When exclusion is allowed: Schell outlined lawful exclusions — for example, when an animal would "fundamentally alter the nature of the service" (such as a sterile surgical suite), is out of control, or is not housebroken. In such cases the handler must be allowed to return and continue participating once the issue is addressed. She added that a bit of barking does not automatically justify removal because barking can be part of some medical-alert tasks.
Courtroom-specific guidance from the Q&A: Schell answered attendee questions about practical courtroom situations. On jury visibility and judges' concerns about size or breed, she said courts should accommodate by routing animals through alternate entrances or arranging seating so jurors do not see the animal, but they "cannot exclude an animal just because of its size or breed." Regarding multiple service animals, Schell said multiple animals are unusual and that courts could reasonably limit accommodations to one or two animals if each performs a distinct task. For allergies or fear among courtroom occupants, she advised moving or separating the person with the allergy rather than denying access to the handler.
Security screening: A law-enforcement attendee asked about metal-detector wands and contact with animals. Schell said using a wand for screening is permissible but staff should avoid touching or making sudden moves around service animals so as not to startle them.
Compliance example: Schell cited a 2018 Title II settlement involving the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Kentucky and Hardin County Emergency Medical Services, which stemmed from a refusal to allow a service animal into an ambulance. The settlement required HCEMS to appoint an ADA coordinator, publish a grievance policy, develop Title II training for staff and make reasonable modifications to policies.
Resources and next steps: Organizers said they will share Schell's PowerPoint and additional resources in the chat and on the courts' YouTube channel. Schell encouraged filing complaints when appropriate to help agencies track systemic problems. The session concluded with a Q&A and an offer to distribute the training materials to attendees requesting them by email.
