or discriminated against him. The mask would have been placed on Plaintiff for the protection of others, not Plaintiff, because at that time the jail’s medical personnel feared Plaintiff might have tuberculosis. Therefore, the court cannot conclude that Defendant’s action violated either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff next claims that Defendants violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act when they failed to send him immediately to the hospital. Specifically, Plaintiff contends he was discriminated against in his treatment because he would have been sent straight to the hospital if he had been suffering from any other condition. Transportation can be construed as a program or service provided by the public entity. See Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 912 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs contention, however, is without
holding the defendant was not under arrest when police asked him to go to the station and then offered him a ride because he did not have transportation holding that a police officers rape of an arrestee was outside the scope of his employment holding neither a phone call by the police requesting an arrestee to come to the station for questioning nor the questioning of an arrestee at the station was a seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that transportation of arrestee to police station is service of police under the ada holding that accused was not in custody when asked to go to the police station and left the station freely