In police terminology, EDP stands for “emotionally disturbed person.” It is not a medical diagnosis. It is an operational label officers use to flag that someone appears to be in a mental health crisis rather than committing a straightforward crime, and it tells responding officers to shift their approach from enforcement to de-escalation. An estimated 6 to 10 percent of all police contacts in the United States involve someone with a serious mental illness, and over a million such arrests happen every year.1Bureau of Justice Assistance. Research to Improve Law Enforcement Responses to Persons with Mental Illnesses and Developmental Disabilities
What Behavior Gets Someone Labeled an EDP
When officers classify someone as an EDP, they are saying the person appears mentally ill or temporarily deranged and is behaving in a way that could lead to serious harm. The label covers a wide range of situations: someone threatening to jump from a ledge, a person screaming at people who are not there, an individual pacing a sidewalk in visible distress, or someone refusing to leave a location while clearly disoriented. The common thread is behavior that seems driven by a mental health crisis or severe emotional disturbance rather than criminal intent.
The classification is deliberately broad. Officers on the scene are not psychiatrists, and nobody expects them to diagnose schizophrenia or bipolar disorder in real time. What the EDP designation does is change the playbook. Instead of approaching a situation as a potential arrest, officers are supposed to treat it as a crisis that calls for patience, communication, and connection to mental health services.
How the Label Changes the Response
When police confront someone in a mental health crisis, they generally have three options: transport the person to a psychiatric facility, use verbal skills to de-escalate, or make an arrest.2FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Responding to Persons with Mental Illness Departments train officers to exhaust the first two before resorting to the third. The goal is to resolve the crisis without handcuffs whenever possible.
De-escalation in these calls looks nothing like a traffic stop. Officers slow everything down. They create physical distance, remove bystanders, and lower the volume of the encounter. They speak calmly, use the person’s name, and give one instruction at a time rather than barking commands. If the person is experiencing hallucinations or delusions, officers are trained not to argue about what is real; arguing only locks the person deeper into the crisis. Instead, officers acknowledge what the person is experiencing and try to redirect toward safety.
A few specific techniques show up across training programs. Officers position themselves at or below the person’s eye level when possible, since standing over someone in crisis can feel threatening. They keep their own movements slow and deliberate. They ask about past treatment, because knowing someone has a therapist or takes medication can open a path toward voluntary cooperation. And they give time. Many EDP situations that would escalate with a rushed response resolve on their own when officers simply wait.
Why CIT-Trained Officers Matter
The most widely adopted training model is Crisis Intervention Training, often called CIT, based on a program developed in Memphis. The standard curriculum runs 40 hours and teaches officers to recognize signs of mental illness, use verbal de-escalation, and connect people to community mental health resources.3CIT International. CIT 40-Hour Curriculum Train-the-Trainer A related program called Crisis Response and Intervention Training (CRIT), developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, covers the same 40-hour block and includes 18 modules addressing mental health conditions, substance use disorders, and intellectual and developmental disabilities.4International Association of Chiefs of Police. Crisis Response and Intervention Training (CRIT) Curriculum
Research evaluating the Memphis CIT model found higher response rates to mental health calls and fewer arrests among CIT-trained officers, though some meta-analyses suggest the arrest-reduction effect varies depending on how it is measured. Not every officer in a department receives the full 40-hour training. Most agencies designate a subset of officers as CIT-certified and dispatch them to mental health calls when available.
If You Are the One Calling for Help
Families facing a loved one’s mental health crisis now have two numbers to consider: 988 and 911.
The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline connects callers with trained counselors who provide emotional support, crisis de-escalation, and referrals to local resources without automatically dispatching police.5SAMHSA. 988 Frequently Asked Questions Law enforcement gets involved only when there is an immediate physical safety threat the counselor cannot reduce over the phone. When that happens, the crisis counselor shares context with 911 dispatchers so officers arrive informed.
Call 911 directly if a suicide attempt is already in progress, if the person has a weapon, or if anyone is in immediate physical danger.5SAMHSA. 988 Frequently Asked Questions When you do, tell the dispatcher explicitly that your loved one is having a mental health crisis. Share their diagnosis and mental health history if you know it. Ask whether a CIT officer or a co-responder team is available. The more clinical information dispatch has, the more likely the response will match the situation.
Some cities now dispatch a police officer alongside a mental health clinician, and a few, such as Eugene, Oregon’s CAHOOTS program, send a medic with a mental health worker instead of police for welfare checks and non-violent psychological crises. The Department of Justice has stated under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act that dispatching a co-responder team or mobile crisis unit instead of police alone may qualify as a reasonable modification that public entities are required to consider.6U.S. Department of Justice. DOJ and HHS Guidance on Emergency Responses to Individuals with Behavioral Health or Other Disabilities
What Happens After an EDP Call
An EDP designation does not give someone immunity from criminal charges, but it changes how officers approach the situation. The initial priority is addressing the crisis and connecting the person to care, not building a case for prosecution. In many EDP encounters, no crime has occurred at all. The person is in distress, not breaking the law.
When someone in a mental health crisis does commit an offense, 27 states have enacted some form of pretrial diversion for defendants identified as having mental health needs.7National Conference of State Legislatures. Pretrial Diversion These programs reroute people away from traditional prosecution and toward treatment. Eligibility rules vary, but they typically exclude violent offenses and cases involving serious injury. Successful completion often results in charges being reduced or dismissed.
When someone poses an immediate danger to themselves or others and refuses voluntary treatment, officers can initiate what most states call an emergency psychiatric hold. This allows transport to a mental health facility for evaluation without the person’s consent. Every state has its own version, but the core legal standard is consistent: the person must present a clear and present danger due to mental illness. The initial hold period typically ranges from 24 to 72 hours. During that window, mental health professionals evaluate the person and decide whether continued treatment is needed. If the facility believes the person needs longer involuntary care, a court hearing must be held, and the person has a right to legal representation. An emergency hold is not an arrest and does not create a criminal record.
If your loved one is taken to a facility, ask the admitting staff about visiting hours, the timeline for evaluation, and how to provide the treatment team with relevant medical history. That information can significantly improve the care the person receives during the hold.
Legal Protections During an EDP Encounter
The Americans with Disabilities Act
Title II of the ADA prohibits state and local government agencies, including police departments, from discriminating against people with disabilities.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 12132 – Discrimination Officers must make reasonable adjustments to their usual procedures when interacting with someone who has a mental health disability. The obligation applies whenever an officer knows or reasonably should know the person has a disability, even if the person has not asked for any accommodation.9U.S. Department of Justice. Examples and Resources to Support Criminal Justice Entities in Compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
A reasonable adjustment might mean giving someone more time and physical space to calm down instead of immediately closing distance, calling in a crisis intervention team, or waiting for a mental health professional to arrive. Officers do not have to make modifications that would interfere with their ability to respond to a genuine safety threat.9U.S. Department of Justice. Examples and Resources to Support Criminal Justice Entities in Compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Use of Force
When officers use force against someone in a mental health crisis, courts evaluate it under the “objective reasonableness” standard from the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor. That standard asks whether a reasonable officer facing the same circumstances would have used the same level of force, considering factors like the severity of any crime, whether the person posed an immediate threat, and whether they were resisting.10Library of Congress. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) Several federal appeals courts have held that visible emotional disturbance must be weighed as an additional factor, meaning the same level of force used on a lucid, resisting suspect is more likely to be found excessive when used on someone clearly in a mental health crisis.
Warrantless Entry for Welfare Checks
Police often encounter EDP situations through welfare checks. The Supreme Court affirmed in January 2026 that officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency aid when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing someone inside is seriously injured or in imminent danger. The Court held that the probable-cause standard from criminal investigations does not apply to these non-criminal emergency entries.11Supreme Court of the United States. Case v. Montana (2026)