Deaf Awareness needed in Legal System/Law Enforcement! I'm angered!

[KimHH]

This year in school I am looking into becoming activist for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community regarding several things. I am outraged after eating if I was pulled over by the police and requested an interpreter they can just say no. If I was arrested and asked they can say no. That their job can't get done in timely manner if I wanted one they would have to bring me back to the station lock me up till one came. That's ridiculous! What's the ADA then?! Legally they have to provide an interpreter. The department would rather he sued and pay out the money and things will never change. Thy are given a booklet that sits in their glove compartment on 100 emergency signs that would not take very log to learn, even just the ABCs! One officer said one they decide to take you into custody they are taking away your right so they don't have to accommodate you. If your Deaf you can't communicate with your hands cuffed behind your back! I'm just so upset, maybe I'm over reacting. As an officer you should want to an be willing to work with the community and are not suppose to think of things as a waste of your time? Am I far off here?

 

[abcdef.grace]

The legal system is definitely not fair to our community. many deaf/HOH people are arrested for "resisting arrest" if an officer calls them or tells them to do something and they don't hear it. I agree that policemen and women should know AT LEAST the alphabet. I'd join your movement! xD

 

[Crickets]

Under federal law, if an interpreter is required, police departments can't ignore the ADA, which is why police departments and other organizations who do get sued. The size of the police department may be a factor in what happens after an arrest, as organizations with fewer than 15 employees have different guidelines under the ADA than those with at least 15 employees do (because small companies have fewer resources than large ones do). I looked up the law and if a Deaf person who needs an interpreter is arrested, under federal law, if there's no interpreter immediately available Miranda rights are supposed to be given in writing and any interrogation is delayed until the interpreter arrives. That's what the law says, so I can't fault police who follow that law - they may believe that if they don't do exactly what the law says they'll get sued. If a police officer tries to communicate with a Deaf person using what little sign language they think they know, they could misunderstand the person and open themselves up to a lawsuit.

If a police officer is going to learn a second language they're probably more likely to choose one that a large part of the population uses in their area, and in most cases that's not going to be sign language. I think sometimes Deaf people forget how few people use sign language enough to use and remember it usefully. I've been HOH my whole life, and I still can't remember even the entire sign alphabet because I never use sign language to communicate with anyone else (because I don't need to). "If you don't use it, you lose it." A few police officers may take it upon themselves to learn sign language, but for most of them it's simply not as useful a tool to have as learning Spanish or another language that lots of the population in a particular region uses.

It's not a perfect system, and there are unfortunately "bad apple" police officers who don't always follow the law, but hopefully those will get weeded out sooner rather than later. There are bad apples in every organization.

 

[KimHH]

Yeah I do agree with a lot of what your saying but this officer was from a very large police station. I was shocked to hear that the Sargent would rather take them being used then provide an interpreter. He said even if the ADA mandates it as law the department would mom the lawsuit over the inconvenience. I think it would be great to get into the stations and help with a small sign language class. They do required trainings on diversity and disability normally and some just don't have exposure. Your absolutely right some are bad apples an he state that as well bit that doesn't give the right to deny if it is the law. Why did the ADA pass? For people like is and it's important I stand up for ourselves and our community. One person can make all the difference even a small voice. Not saying they need to learn sign language but if you offer you'd be surprised. Even the small effort to take the sign language book out of their glove compartment and try make all the difference right

 

[KimHH]

That's awesome! It's our right and even a small voice can make a difference!

 

[Crickets]

Yeah I do agree with a lot of what your saying but this officer was from a very large police station. I was shocked to hear that the Sargent would rather take them being used then provide an interpreter. He said even if the ADA mandates it as law the department would mom the lawsuit over the inconvenience. I think it would be great to get into the stations and help with a small sign language class. They do required trainings on diversity and disability normally and some just don't have exposure. Your absolutely right some are bad apples an he state that as well bit that doesn't give the right to deny if it is the law. Why did the ADA pass? For people like is and it's important I stand up for ourselves and our community. One person can make all the difference even a small voice. Not saying they need to learn sign language but if you offer you'd be surprised. Even the small effort to take the sign language book out of their glove compartment and try make all the difference right

Can you tell us where and when this happened or any other information about it? I'd like to read about the case and find out how it turned out and if there were any penalties/consequences for that police department as a result. If someone's rights were violated and a police officer actually said they'd prefer to be sued than deal with the inconvenience of getting an interpreter, then if I were a taxpayer living in his town I'd be upset because my taxes could go up because the police department preferred to get sued. So if you can specify where this case happened that would be helpful.

 

[KimHH]

It wasn't a case I was told in a general conversation as I was questioning to get an idea where an office would stand. The officer was just letting me know that even though I mean well that's just how it is. A lot of departments don't even have an interpreter they have to call around to other department to see if someone can provide one or they call an agency and have to wait for one to come. I will not disclose the department as I am trying to bring awareness. I was grateful to hear honesty so I know now what I am dealing with. Apparently there is nothing they can do about it they have a protocol as well which I'd know nothing about. This is not just a one department thing it's so far widespread that's why getting the education inside is the key.

 

[KimHH]

Oh this department was never sued but I'm sure others have if they follow the same protocol but I will be looking into others to see if that's the case. You can never just take one persons word but it was just so upsetting to hear

 

[Calvin]

To the OP: Please don't make duplicate threads... posts were moved here from duplicate thread. Duplicate thread deleted.

Thanks.

 

[KimHH]

To the OP: Please don't make duplicate threads... posts were moved here from duplicate thread. Duplicate thread deleted.

Thanks.

Sorry about that I wanted to move it and when I went to delete the other one I couldn't figure out how, my fault .

 

[Reba]

. . . I looked up the law and if a Deaf person who needs an interpreter is arrested, under federal law, if there's no interpreter immediately available Miranda rights are supposed to be given in writing and any interrogation is delayed until the interpreter arrives....

If there is no interpreter immediately available, giving the Deaf person a written copy of the Miranda statement isn't always going to suffice. The police will simply have to wait until the interpreter shows up before attempting to question the Deaf person (in writing or any other way), period. If the case were to go to trial and the defense could prove that the Deaf client didn't understand the written Miranda statement, then any questioning that was done subsequent to that could be thrown out.

Even with a terp, when the Miranda statement is signed it must be video recorded in case there is a later dispute about it at trial.

 

[Crickets]

If there is no interpreter immediately available, giving the Deaf person a written copy of the Miranda statement isn't always going to suffice. The police will simply have to wait until the interpreter shows up before attempting to question the Deaf person (in writing or any other way), period. If the case were to go to trial and the defense could prove that the Deaf client didn't understand the written Miranda statement, then any questioning that was done subsequent to that could be thrown out.

Even with a terp, when the Miranda statement is signed it must be video recorded in case there is a later dispute about it at trial.

Exactly. Basically, except for being given the Miranda in writing, if someone is Deaf and cannot read English well or at all and uses sign language as their primary means of communication and they are arrested, they're probably going to have to wait until an interpreter is available for anything else to happen, including the Miranda being given to them again in sign language to make sure they understand it, why they were arrested, to be questioned, to give a statement, etc. A police officer may have a card available to him/her with basic sign information (to use in accidents/emergencies), but when they're arresting a Deaf person, to make sure everything can hold up in court they'll want an interpreter there and to be able to film any conversation first.

It's probably how police handle any arrest where the person they're arresting doesn't speak or understand English very well. Getting an interpreter and making sure any questioning happens legally is going to be their priority. If a police officer arrests a Deaf person and their lawyer can show that the Deaf person didn't understand their rights, what they were admitting to, or why they were being arrested before they were questioned, then there was no point in arresting them in the first place, because the charge will probably be thrown out.

Police learning how to identify when someone is Deaf and how to ensure that they treat a Deaf person and/or arrest a Deaf person so that they comply with the ADA is good and realistic. But if a Deaf person is arrested, expecting that police will want to try to talk to them in sign language before an interpreter arrives isn't realistic, because anything the Deaf person said at that point probably wouldn't hold up in court.

 

[Crickets]

The legal system is definitely not fair to our community. many deaf/HOH people are arrested for "resisting arrest" if an officer calls them or tells them to do something and they don't hear it. I agree that policemen and women should know AT LEAST the alphabet. I'd join your movement! xD

Do you also think police should know the Russian alphabet and a couple dozen Chinese and Japanese characters well enough to communicate with too? Expecting police to know even the sign alphabet just isn't realistic. It's a different language that they most likely would rarely use, and one that an extremely small portion of the population relies on as their only means of effective communication. Why should police learn it rather than some other language? Most deaf people in the U.S. also understand and can communicate in English (through writing and texting), and if they can't then they're most likely going to be treated like a foreign language-speaking person who is arrested would be.

The first thing an arresting police officer has to do is give the person being arrested the Miranda warning and ask if they understand their rights. Fingerspelling the Miranda warning is not the best way to ensure that a Deaf person understands their rights, and if the police can't be sure the Miranda warning has been communicated effectively and accurately, then the police can't question the Deaf person. They have to wait for an interpreter.

 

[Bottesini]

This year in school I am looking into becoming activist for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community regarding several things. I am outraged after eating if I was pulled over by the police and requested an interpreter they can just say no. If I was arrested and asked they can say no. That their job can't get done in timely manner if I wanted one they would have to bring me back to the station lock me up till one came. That's ridiculous! What's the ADA then?! Legally they have to provide an interpreter. The department would rather he sued and pay out the money and things will never change. Thy are given a booklet that sits in their glove compartment on 100 emergency signs that would not take very log to learn, even just the ABCs! One officer said one they decide to take you into custody they are taking away your right so they don't have to accommodate you. If your Deaf you can't communicate with your hands cuffed behind your back! I'm just so upset, maybe I'm over reacting. As an officer you should want to an be willing to work with the community and are not suppose to think of things as a waste of your time? Am I far off here?

Yes you are far off. The right to an interpreter protects the deaf person.

That's going back to the dark ages to say they can work with a policeman who has an imperfect and minimal knowledge of signing.

 

[KimHH]

Yes you are far off. The right to an interpreter protects the deaf person.



That's going back to the dark ages to say they can work with a policeman who has an imperfect and minimal knowledge of signing.

How am I far off? I'm agreeing with you that the right to an interpreter protects a deaf person? That's why I was shocked to hear they can just deny the deaf person one if one was requested. They can even read them their rights even if they don't understand them because as long as they read them to them they did their part. Now that might not hold up in court but then that's their fault, the departments. I just believe if they request one one should be provided. I thought that was law according to the ADA but I was told different. I over all feel that there needs to also be more training regarding working with deaf and hard if hearing individuals. For example at a night traffic stop if an office is shining the light in your face and ordering you to exit the car, for me I'd have no idea what they were saying because if the light was in my eyes I couldn't see their mouth. That's just a small example but spreading awareness is good. We don't live in a perfect world I understand but some people just don't have the awareness. Ok even though it would be nice for them to learn a little communication with the population I understand it's not ideal with all the other languages as such but the main thing that upset me was hearing that my right to an interpreter could be denied so freely even thought it's law because it would tie up them getting things done in a "timely manner" and keeping them from being on the street, etc. isn't that why the ADA exists? How can that right, a law, just be taken away? Doesn't an interpreter legally need to be provided if asked?

 

[Bottesini]

How am I far off? I'm agreeing with you that the right to an interpreter protects a deaf person? That's why I was shocked to hear they can just deny the deaf person one if one was requested. They can even read them their rights even if they don't understand them because as long as they read them to them they did their part. Now that might not hold up in court but then that's their fault, the departments. I just believe if they request one one should be provided. I thought that was law according to the ADA but I was told different. I over all feel that there needs to also be more training regarding working with deaf and hard if hearing individuals. For example at a night traffic stop if an office is shining the light in your face and ordering you to exit the car, for me I'd have no idea what they were saying because if the light was in my eyes I couldn't see their mouth. That's just a small example but spreading awareness is good. We don't live in a perfect world I understand but some people just don't have the awareness. Ok even though it would be nice for them to learn a little communication with the population I understand it's not ideal with all the other languages as such but the main thing that upset me was hearing that my right to an interpreter could be denied so freely even thought it's law because it would tie up them getting things done in a "timely manner" and keeping them from being on the street, etc. isn't that why the ADA exists? How can that right, a law, just be taken away? Doesn't an interpreter legally need to be provided if asked?

of course. And it will. Just not right there on the street.

Hopefully you don't commit crimes, but if arrested, go ahead to wait for the interpreter to come to the station.

Are you a hearing person?

 

[KimHH]

of course. And it will. Just not right there on the street.



Hopefully you don't commit crimes, but if arrested, go ahead to wait for the interpreter to come to the station.



Are you a hearing person?

No I'm hard of hearing, and I don't commit crimes. My topic was stemming off a conversation with a police officer who pretty much said they don't have to provide an interpreter when I thought it was the law.

 

[Nic]

No I'm hard of hearing, and I don't commit crimes. My topic was stemming off a conversation with a police officer who pretty much said they don't have to provide an interpreter when I thought it was the law.

They're required to provide "Accommodations" under the ADA. There's details here: http://nad.org/issues/justice/police-and-law-enforcement/communication-access

Both Section 504 and the ADA make clear that law enforcement agencies are obligated to take action to ensure effective communication with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.

It's quite possible that the officer you spoke with was wrong, or was speaking specifically of a single part of the arrest (the actually getting a person into custody part, especially if they're a threat) where they might be able to forgo immediate accommodations.