Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Families and disability advocates press Hawaii lawmakers to bar ‘excited delirium’ from official use
Loading...
Summary
Testimony at the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs urged the legislature to amend two resolutions (HCR146/HR138) to prohibit use of 'excited delirium' and related terms in state practice. Family members recounted fatal encounters with police, advocates cited medical community withdrawals of the diagnosis, and some legal counsel requested explicit inclusion of alternate labels.
Supporters of two House resolutions seeking to limit official use of the phrase "excited delirium" told a House committee on April 7 that the term has been misused in police settings and can shield officers from accountability.
Verdell Hallick, speaking on Zoom about his son Sheldon Hallick, told the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs that Sheldon’s 2015 encounter with Honolulu police — during which officers used pepper spray, a Taser, and restraining techniques — led to his death. "The Honolulu Police Department defended their actions by blaming his death on excited delirium," Hallick said, and added that jurors at trial ultimately accepted the defense expert’s testimony. He said medical organizations have since disavowed the diagnosis and urged lawmakers to prevent the term and its variants from being used in Hawaii.
Advocacy groups also urged action. A representative of the Hawaii Disability Rights Center said the resolution could help generate momentum for legislative change after earlier efforts stalled. A lawyer from Haddad & Sherwin LLP asked the committee to amend the resolution to include alternate labels — such as "hyperactive delirium" and "agitated delirium" — arguing proponents of the theory switch names and would otherwise evade a narrow ban.
Why it matters: Testimony tied the policy question to policing outcomes, medical consensus, and litigation. Advocates said banning the term from official use would limit a recurring defense in cases of deaths in custody and prompt agencies to adopt more specific clinical and operational practices for managing behavioral health crises.
What supporters asked for: Witnesses asked the committee to (1) adopt a resolution that prevents state agencies from relying on "excited delirium" (and commonly used aliases) as an explanatory diagnosis in policy or official determinations and (2) encourage training and alternative response options for law enforcement interacting with people in behavioral‑health crises.
Responses and next steps: Committee members heard the emotional family testimony and technical suggestions for wording. The committee’s recommendation on HCR146/HR138 was to pass as is during decision making; members debated language and potential technical amendments before voting. The committee recorded the recommendation and will advance amended language as part of its final reports.
Ending: The committee moved HCR146/HR138 forward with the chair’s recommended language; any final statutory or rule changes would depend on later bill language or administrative guidance.
