Florida bill would require police to be trained on how to interact with autistic people
A new bill (HB 829) has been introduced in Florida (USA) that would require all police officers to receive specialised training about autism. The training would teach officers how to better understand and assist autistic people in their community. The language of the bill is quite troublesome. First, I’ll highlight what’s in it. Then, I’ll break it down to see where it’s really headed. Here are some of key topics:
Recognising common signs that someone has ASD, such as special interests, sensory issues and communication differences. This will help officers properly identify when someone they meet might have autism.
Learning communication techniques and rules to appropriately and respectfully interact with autistic individuals during interviews or questioning. This ensures our rights are protected.
Search and rescue strategies to safely locate autistic people who have wandered off and return them to safety without causing unnecessary stress.
Identifying potential situations of mistreatment towards autistic people so officers can intervene and help protect them if needed.
Techniques to calmly resolve tense situations that may arise when dealing with a distressed autistic person, focusing on de-escalation and preventing harm.
The Bill and the training aims to give officers important skills and knowledge to better serve autistic people and keep all community members safe. Both new and current officers would need to complete the training programme.
Symptoms and characteristics
The proposed legislation mandates that the training for law enforcement officers must include “instruction on the recognition of the symptoms and characteristics of an individual on the autism disorder spectrum” (lines 26-27). This component would encompass teaching officers how to identify “typical signs and behaviours” associated with autism in order to assist them in recognising when a person they come across whilst on duty may be autistic. For example, covering characteristics such as difficulties with communication and social interactions, repetitive behaviours, intense focus on specific topics, sensitivity to certain stimuli, meltdowns when overwhelmed, and poor eye contact. Equipping officers with the knowledge to spot indications someone may be autistic should facilitate more positive interactions and appropriate responses from police when dealing with autistic people. It aims to help officers discern that certain actions they encounter could relate to an underlying medical condition rather than intentional non-compliance or misconduct.
Wait, what? Why would we need that?
Requiring “autism training” for law enforcement risks further legitimising an inherently unjust carceral system. However, the unfortunate reality is that autistic people currently face discrimination within that system. One would hope that this training could provide some protection.
At present, “autistic behaviours” are often misinterpreted as non-compliance or misconduct by police. People are subjected to aggressive, inappropriate responses instead of support. This further disadvantages an already marginalised group. Officers urgently require education to prevent harm within current parameters.
However, true justice requires radical reform. Whilst enhanced training has some benefit, it fails to address wider problems. The training itself stems from an assumption of criminality amongst disabled citizens – contributing to stigma. It also implies behavioural issues derive solely from medical conditions, rather than situational factors like ineffective support. Real change means acknowledging wider social barriers facing communities like the autistic. Otherwise discriminatory beliefs within state institutions prevail.
We cannot see awareness training as a panacea. The training aims to mitigate acute harm but risks obscuring institutional oppression. This highlights the need for a justice system centring community cooperation over coercion. One supporting all citizens rather than demanding compliance. Implementing this bill may represent minimal progress but achieving justice for marginalised groups necessitates more fundamental societal change.
Appropriate interrogation techniques?
In case you don’t know, the police in the US are allowed to lie to detained persons during their investigations. But, when an person does not tell the interrogators what the system believes to be the truth of the matter at hand, the person risks being charged with obstruction / making false statements. That’s why the best advice I can give is to simply invoke your right to remain silent, protected by the Constitution’s 5th Amendment. You might say that you intend to fully cooperate, but that you prefer to work through an / your attorney.
Nevertheless, the proposed legislation states that the autism training for law enforcement officers should include “appropriate techniques for interviewing or interrogating an individual with autism spectrum disorder, including techniques to ensure the legality of statements made and techniques used to protect the rights of the individual” (lines 40-43). This component would encompass instruction on suitable protocols to follow when conducting interviews or questioning of autistic people to guarantee their legal rights are upheld and they are not unduly disadvantaged.
For example, officers may be taught about using clear, literal language, and allowing extra processing time for responses rather than interpreting delays or unusual phrasing as evasion or non-cooperation. Additionally, they would learn how employing non-threatening body language, speaking in a calm tone, allowing sensory adaptations like fidget items, and offering regular breaks can assist an autistic interviewee in feeling comfortable and communicating to the best of their ability. The training would emphasise that seeming reticence or anxiety in interviews could stem from autism-related factors rather than having anything sinister to hide. Equipping officers with such techniques would ensure questioning happens in an accessible, ethical manner for autistic individuals. Ultimately this should deliver fairer outcomes by reducing the risk of statements being misrepresented or coerced due to a lack of reasonable adjustments.
Who would create / deliver the training?
The Bill specifies that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (CJSTC) would be responsible for establishing and overseeing the autism training programme (lines 23-24).
In terms of who would actually develop and deliver the training curriculum, given my experience within the US justice system, there are a few likely options:
In-house development: The CJSTC could utilise their own staff to create the course content. These personnel already create training programs for law enforcement on an ongoing basis. This is the lowest-cost option.
Contracted development: The CJSTC may choose to contract an external training provider to develop the curriculum. This would likely involve putting out a request for proposals (RFP) and selecting an organisation from within its list of approved vendors based upon the lowest acceptable bid.
University partnership: There are universities in Florida with scholars conducting research related to autism, law enforcement interactions, etc. The CJSTC could collaborate with relevant academic departments to have university faculty play a lead role in researching and designing the curriculum. The state would then compensate the school / researcher for the creation of the eventual training materials. This would be a very slow process.
Community partnerships: The CJSTC could engage groups like Autism $peaks to play a consulting role in building the curriculum and ensuring it appropriately meets the requirements outlined in the bill. This is the route that politicians favour as it gets the most buzz, and the most donations to their campaign funds.
As for the delivery, once the curriculum is developed, the first run of the class (the beta test) includes the future instructors as the initial student cohort. In this way, the system can say that all regularly scheduled classes are taught by “certified” training staff. It’s one of the main gatekeeping functions within the justice system that helps to insure the trainers are “on message.”
Mistreatment and misconduct?
The Bill further states that training should include “techniques for recognizing the agency of an individual with autism spectrum disorder while identifying potential abusive or coercive situations” (lines 48-50). This component would involve teaching officers how to spot signs that an autistic individual is facing exploitation or mistreatment, so they can intervene where appropriate.
However, prevailing cultures within US law enforcement pose barriers to meaningful accountability. The deeply ingrained “blue wall of silence” and tendencies to instinctively “protect their own” means officers often refrain from challenging colleagues’ misconduct. Despite enhanced awareness, these systemic attitudes threaten to override individual gains from autism training. Well-documented cases, including my own time in the system, exemplify officers observing inappropriate force or rights violations but feeling unable to act against fellow police.
As the Bill stands, improved identification of harmful scenarios facing vulnerable autistic individuals seems unlikely to translate into increased intervention while self-preservation is prioritized over integrity. Techniques for recognising concerning situations mean little without empowerment to properly address them. As such, the legislation might usefully incorporate mechanisms to foster institutional accountability alongside individual skill development. More effective civilian oversight bodies, more robust internal reporting systems for flagging misconduct, and cultural shifts making transparency duties clear could complement the awareness training.
Thus, whilst enhanced autism-focused capabilities help officers individually, entrenched systemic priorities threaten application of these skills for equitable outcomes. Addressing policing culture itself, not just building specialist competencies, seems essential to truly uphold the duty to protect and serve all citizens.
Bottom line
At its crux, this proposed Florida bill mandating autism training for police unfortunately reeks more of a publicity gambit than a genuine stab at reform. Whilst enhanced awareness certainly has value on an individual level, the glaring lack of accountability permeating forces’ culture promises to stymy any systemic progress.
Efforts ostensibly helping vulnerable groups mean little when officers remain empowered to abuse powers with impunity. And thinly veiled profiteering incentives exist too - lucrative contracts for private training providers beckon. Without parallel efforts to confront pervasive discrimination across the justice system, such legislative tweaks offer empty lip service above substantive change.
Few officers will put freshly polished capabilities into action if professional livelihoods are jeopardized through challenging misconduct. And what message does specialist training set against the backdrop of extensively documented disability rights violations? That “autistic traits” require additional scrutiny, rather than emphasis on supporting all citizens alike? It implies an inherent expectation of criminality.
If Florida lawmakers truly wished to make a difference, they might start by strengthening accountability, listening to affected communities, and not simply appeasing consciences with publicity plays whilst leaving cultural problems to fester. Because the greatest barrier to progress lies within the inherently flawed institutions themselves - not skills gaps amongst their agents. Too often the rhetoric of reform fails to manifest tangible betterment for society’s most marginalized.