A disabled Brookings woman has received a $300,000 settlement from the city after the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned a conviction related to a 2018 arrest for “fleeing or evading a police officer” on her mobility scooter.

Jennifer Gayman has already received the $300,000 from the Brookings Police Department, her attorney Jacob Johnstun told the Wild Rivers Outpost on Thursday. Johnstun said he filed a lawsuit in federal court against Brookings and the police officers involved in her Nov. 19, 2018 arrest in January.

Johnstun announced the settlement agreement between Gayman and Brookings via a Facebook post March 9.

The Brookings Police Department also publicly apologized to Gayman and has agreed to undergo Americans with Disabilities Act training, both of which were stipulations of the settlement agreement, Johnstun said.

“It was very important to Ms. Gayman that ADA training be given so that other disabled citizens in mobility scooters can feel safe driving around town without the fear of being cited or arrested for exercising their basic rights,” he said via Facebook.

According to a March 3 news release, BPD apologized on behalf of the two former police officers who stopped Gayman, who was making her way home in the early morning hours of Nov. 19, 2018, and cited her for operating her mobility scooter on the sidewalk and for not wearing a helmet.

The officers told Gayman that she couldn’t use her scooter to get home because she did not have a safety helmet and arrested her following a “low-speed pursuit” for two to three minutes, according to the Oregon Court of Appeals June 9, 2021 opinion.

She was charged with fleeing or attempting to flee a police officer and was found guilty in Oregon Circuit Court, according to the BPD news release.

The Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the conviction in June 2021, stating that under the Americans With Disabilities Act, disabled persons operating mobility scooters are considered pedestrians and can use public sidewalks and crosswalks freely, according to BPD.

Documents:

• Oregon Court of Appeals opinion

SHARE →