Page 32 - PCPA Winter 2023 Bulletin Magazine

Words wield power in law enforcement. The language chosen by officers is not merely a means of
communication, but a vital tool that shapes their interactions and outcomes. This aspect of policing is
crucial not just in individual encounters but also plays a significant role in influencing community
perceptions of law enforcement. The recent debate, particularly following California's legislative shift
on the term 'excited delirium,' underlines the importance of language.
In light of these linguistic shifts, it's important for agencies to reflect on their policies and the language
they use, ensuring it resonates with current societal values and norms. However, it's also crucial to
recognize that these changes in terminology are just that — changes in language, not necessarily in
action. As agencies navigate these linguistic updates, the most important takeaway in this current
debate should not be the language used but the policies and procedures being employed. While
departments are revising their policy language, they should, more importantly, review and align their
response procedures to such incidents with best practices. This ensures that they are positioned to
achieve the most favorable outcomes for all involved.
Background on the California Ruling
The state of California, in a landmark legislative act, banned the use of 'excited delirium' in police
reports and as a cause of death, a move that has set a precedent and sparked a national
reassessment of the term's appropriateness and utility. California's recent legislative ban on 'excited
delirium' follows in the wake of significant shifts in stance from leading health organizations. The
American Medical Association (AMA), the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and the American
College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) have all expressed concerns or direct opposition to the
term. They argue that it lacks clinical validation, is not recognized within the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and may carry implicit racial biases.
Terminology's Impact
The term 'excited delirium' has traditionally been part of the vocabulary for many agencies, used to
describe individuals displaying signs of acute behavioral distress, including but not limited to
symptoms such as hyperactivity, agitation, extreme anxiety, or erratic behavior. However, opponents
of the term argue that it lacks clinical validation, drawing parallels to the use of 'multiple personality
disorder,' which was redefined as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) in the DSM in 1994. But as law
enforcement officers, our role was never to diagnose medical or psychological disorders. Our job is
simpler: to respond, observe, and effectively communicate our observations to incoming units, and to
recognize the need for additional resources, such as EMS or officers trained in crisis intervention.
Beyond Words: The Excited Delirium
Discussion
Words wield power in law enforcement. The language chosen by officers is not merely a means of
communication, but a vital tool that shapes their interactions and outcomes. This aspect of policing is
crucial not just in individual encounters but also plays a significant role in influencing community
perceptions of law enforcement. The recent debate, particularly following California's legislative shift
on the term 'excited delirium,' underlines the importance of language.
In light of these linguistic shifts, it's important for agencies to reflect on their policies and the language
they use, ensuring it resonates with current societal values and norms. However, it's also crucial to
recognize that these changes in terminology are just that — changes in language, not necessarily in
action. As agencies navigate these linguistic updates, the most important takeaway in this current
debate should not be the language used but the policies and procedures being employed. While
departments are revising their policy language, they should, more importantly, review and align their
response procedures to such incidents with best practices. This ensures that they are positioned to
achieve the most favorable outcomes for all involved.
Background on the California Ruling
The state of California, in a landmark legislative act, banned the use of 'excited delirium' in police
reports and as a cause of death, a move that has set a precedent and sparked a national
reassessment of the term's appropriateness and utility. California's recent legislative ban on 'excited
delirium' follows in the wake of significant shifts in stance from leading health organizations. The
American Medical Association (AMA), the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and the American
College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) have all expressed concerns or direct opposition to the
term. They argue that it lacks clinical validation, is not recognized within the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and may carry implicit racial biases.
Terminology's Impact
The term 'excited delirium' has traditionally been part of the vocabulary for many agencies, used to
describe individuals displaying signs of acute behavioral distress, including but not limited to
symptoms such as hyperactivity, agitation, extreme anxiety, or erratic behavior. However, opponents
of the term argue that it lacks clinical validation, drawing parallels to the use of 'multiple personality
disorder,' which was redefined as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) in the DSM in 1994. But as law
enforcement officers, our role was never to diagnose medical or psychological disorders. Our job is
simpler: to respond, observe, and effectively communicate our observations to incoming units, and to
recognize the need for additional resources, such as EMS or officers trained in crisis intervention.
Beyond Words: The Excited Delirium
Discussion
32
PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION