As technology continues to improve and effective communication tools evolve, so do the processes in which law enforcement interacts with persons with disabilities. We review some of the best practices for law enforcement in regards to communicating and interacting with persons with disabilities as recommended by the Department of Justice in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In general, the ADA requires that Title II entities, including law enforcement agencies, "communicate effectively with people who have communication disabilities." This means that covered entities are required to "provide auxiliary aids and services to make sure that individuals with speech, hearing and vision disabilities can understand what is said or written and communicate effectively."
The issue of effective communication may come up when officers are required to interview witnesses, suspects, or victims, and often in times of distress − during which safety of course is a priority.
Regardless, Title II entities are required to establish processes and procedures to provide effective communication and ensure programs, services, and communication are delivered effectively to persons with disabilities.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), officers may find the following solutions useful:
While the tips above are great in emergency situations, law enforcement agencies should always ensure they have up-to-date policies and procedures, as well as contracts and memorandums of understanding (MOU's) in place with communication vendors, such as ASL interpreters and VRI/VRS providers.
For example, using a pad and pen may be considered acceptable for traffic violations, in which, the officer has the ability to point to text and pictures as visual aids - however, for more intensive interactions, such as interviews to determine whether a crime has been committed, more effective communication types need to be used, such as interpreters, UBI-DUO's, VRI/VRS, and Braille/tactile communication.
Law enforcement agencies should have agreements in place to provide the following services:
To that end, law enforcement agencies should also be aware of any constraints in their communities. For example, in some states legislation exists that requires interpreters to be RID certified. RID certification is incredibly beneficial to those looking to secure qualified interpreters with evidence of their expertise, but in rural communities, there may be a lack of qualified individuals to meet both the legal requirements of their state and/or have the proper qualifications to interpret in legal settings. Law enforcement agencies should be aware of these constraints and prepare for alternative ways to communicate with their community.
According to the DOJ's "Communicating with People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: ADA Guide for Law Enforcement Officers," the following are some practical suggestions for communicating effectively:
When considering the use of the tips above, law enforcement agencies should work to anticipate how various communication methods can be incorporated into their work on a regular basis. For example, running table-top exercises that focus on how officers may communicate with victims who are deaf or hard of hearing, what to do if interpreters are not available, and how to properly read Miranda rights to a person who does not speak English as a first language. Table-top exercises help agencies identify solutions that may not be apparent during the policy development process, such as how to properly restrain persons who communicate in ASL, and will ensure officers have lived experience working to identify ways to effectively communicate.
Finally, law enforcement agencies need to be aware of when communication aids are absolutely required and when they are not. In general, it is not appropriate to rely on persons with personal relationships to translate for the officer. In some cases, officers may be tempted to allow a husband or wife to translate for them, only to find out later that the spouse was the reason the victim contacted the police in the first place - in this case, the interpreter has an obvious conflict in interpreting for the victim and should be treated as any other witness or suspect, regardless of their ability to translate for the victim.