Bill proposes more police training about disabilities
Training requirements for Arizona law enforcement could soon include lessons on how to communicate more effectively — and safely — with people with disabilities.
Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, is calling for the state’s Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to develop a program that would prepare officers to manage “communication deficits” stemming from hearing loss, developmental disabilities and other conditions.
House Bill 2566, which has bipartisan support, would require in-person and online training for officers, with the board tracking the number of officers who completed the program and how frequently and effectively it was applied.
“As a police officer for 20 years, I can tell you that it’s really important to be able to communicate with people,” Kavanagh said. “If a person is deaf and you don’t pick up on that…you can have a very fatal misunderstanding.”
Indeed, a series of police incidents involving individuals who couldn’t hear officers’ commands has made headlines in recent years.
In St. Louis, a deaf man having a diabetic emergency said police beat him on the side of the road. In Tacoma, Washington, a deaf woman who called for help after an assault said police used a Taser on her instead. And in Oklahoma City, a deaf man was shot and killed by officers as neighbors yelled that he couldn’t hear their orders.
In Arizona, police have mistaken people with developmental disabilities for drug users after observing what they considered strange movements and a failure to respond to requests. Last year, a Buckeye officer held down and detained a 14-year-old boy with autism in such an incident, later spurring more collaboration between police and autism advocates.
“We know that many persons with disabilities have had negative interactions with law enforcement,” said April Reed, vice president of advocacy with disability-rights group Ability360.
“Training on disability awareness could be an important step in improving the understanding of people with a variety of disabilities and their needs.”
The Phoenix Police Department already has experimented with a training program designed by the Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, after acknowledging that both residents and officers were frustrated with communication barriers.
Officers had been improvising with notepads and cellphones, writing back and forth during traffic stops and interviews.
The Americans with Disabilities Act generally doesn’t require qualified interpreters or specialized tools for “simple transactions,” such as issuing a citation, or urgent situations, such as when a violent crime is in progress.
But not providing them during “lengthy or complex transactions,” such as interviews with witnesses or victims, could be grounds for a civil-rights lawsuit.
Having someone’s partner or caregiver serve as an informal interpreter can be particularly problematic during investigations involving domestic violence or abuse. Officers have considered retaining on-call interpreters or use portable tablets for relay services, which allow qualified interpreters or captioners to help via video call.
Matt Giordano, executive director of the Standards and Training Board, said “law enforcement 100 percent supports this type of training” because “our ability to effectively communicate with every member of the community allows us to provide a certain level of service.”
But he was concerned about changing state law to establish the program.
“I think it can probably be better handled through (our) administrative code, which outlines the levels of training that are required for officers,” he said.
“We want to make sure police officers get this information, but I think…there are other ways to accomplish what this is setting out to accomplish.”
Giordano also balked at the reporting requirements outlined in the bill.
“We already track training as part of our yearly requirements, and with over 14,000 peace officers in the state of Arizona spread over 160 law enforcement agencies, adding an additional thing to track would be cumbersome for us,” he said.
“And as far as the section about the impact (of the training in the field), I don’t know what the mechanism would be to capture that. I would worry about one, meeting timelines and two, it being accurate.”
The Standards and Training Board could decide to implement the disability training as part of its administrative rules, instead of having requirements enshrined in state law.