In recent years, the United States has faced a reckoning over racialized violence and systemic injustice—particularly in how law enforcement interacts with African-American and Latino communities. While headlines often focus on fatal encounters, a deeper, more insidious issue lurks beneath: the misclassification of deaths, the misuse of disputed medical terms like “excited delirium,” and the institutional gaslighting that shields misconduct from scrutiny.
At the intersection of justice, medicine, and technology lies an opportunity for structural change. But first, we must understand how deep the roots of misclassification, racial bias, and judicial failure run—and why tools like GoVia may be part of the necessary solution.
Excited Delirium: A Pseudoscientific Shield for Police Brutality
The term “excited delirium” has frequently been used by law enforcement to explain in-custody deaths, particularly those involving Black and Latino men. Characterized by extreme agitation, aggression, and sudden death, this “diagnosis” lacks clinical legitimacy.
The American Medical Association (AMA), American Psychiatric Association (APA), and World Health Organization (WHO) do not recognize excited delirium as a valid medical condition. Nevertheless, it continues to appear on autopsy reports and is often used as a legal defense for excessive force.
In 2023, California became the first state to ban coroners and law enforcement from using “excited delirium” on death certificates. Meanwhile, a 2024 audit in Maryland reviewed 1,200 deaths and found at least 41 cases where deaths during police restraint were misclassified—many attributed to excited delirium or listed as “accidental” rather than homicide (Associated Press, 2024).
Such findings underscore a critical issue: language is being weaponized to erase accountability.
Misclassification of Deaths in Black and Latino Communities
Medical examiners often operate with limited oversight and are embedded within systems that depend on police cooperation. This creates a dangerous incentive structure—one in which cause of death can be influenced by political and legal concerns rather than objective forensic standards.
A 2021 study published in The Lancet found that over 17,000 deaths caused by police violence in the U.S. between 1980 and 2018 were misclassified, often under vague categories like “cardiac arrest,” “accident,” or “undetermined.” Black Americans were 3.5 times more likely to die from police violence than white Americans (The Lancet, 2021).
This underreporting distorts the national conversation about police violence, undercuts reform efforts, and obscures the racial disparities that persist in police encounters.
Gaslighting as Institutional Practice
Misclassification is only part of the problem. Gaslighting—denying, distorting, or justifying abuse—is systemic. From prosecutors who decline to charge officers to police unions that defend deadly conduct, the system is designed to protect itself.
“Excited delirium” is just one tool in the institutional gaslighter’s toolkit. Prosecutors frequently accept law enforcement’s narrative at face value, while public defenders must fight for access to independent autopsies and expert witnesses.
Judges, too, play a role. Qualified immunity shields officers from accountability unless a nearly identical case has already established a violation. This legal standard creates a perverse feedback loop: misconduct that has not yet been explicitly ruled illegal is treated as legal—until it isn’t.
The Role of GoVia: Overwatch, Accountability, and Real-Time Legal Support
This is where GoVia enters the picture. GoVia is a community safety and legal tech platform designed to level the playing field during police encounters. The core idea is simple but profound: if someone is watching, fewer abuses occur.
With GoVia, users can:
Connect immediately with an attorney during a police stop
Request a licensed mental health professional to intervene or observe
Live-stream the interaction for transparency and real-time accountability
Rate the police officer involved in the encounter from 1 to 5, contributing to a public, decentralized database of citizen-reported experiences
This concept of overwatch—having trained professionals and the public observe interactions in real time—can de-escalate situations, preserve evidence, and deter bad actors.
If an officer knows they are being rated, streamed, and watched by an attorney, they are far less likely to escalate violence. And if the officer is indeed ethical and professional, GoVia allows users to highlight these “heroes,” encouraging excellence and transparency through social reinforcement.
Independent Defense: Science vs. State
When a death occurs during or after police contact, the state typically controls every aspect of the narrative: the medical examiner’s report, the prosecutor’s framing, and the media’s initial coverage. Without access to independent forensic analysis, the defense is at a severe disadvantage.
That’s why independent autopsies, mental health evaluations, toxicology, and expert witnesses are essential. They introduce scientific rigor to counter state-sanctioned narratives.
Case in point: The family of George Floyd commissioned an independent autopsy after the state claimed no evidence of asphyxiation. That private report concluded what millions witnessed on video: Floyd was killed by sustained pressure on his neck. This independent finding ultimately helped convict Derek Chauvin.
We must normalize this approach. Every in-custody death should be subject to third-party review, and funding must be made available for marginalized families who cannot afford expert testimony.
Case Law That Frames This Reality
Several Supreme Court cases define how law enforcement is allowed to operate—but also expose the legal limitations citizens face:
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Established the “objective reasonableness” standard for assessing police use of force. It provides wide latitude for officers, often interpreted in their favor.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Ruled that deadly force may not be used against fleeing suspects unless they pose a significant threat of death or serious injury.
These rulings create a legal architecture where police actions are judged in hindsight, and where the benefit of the doubt is structurally awarded to officers—not the victims.
The Question We Must Confront: How Deep Does Racism Go?
It is no longer adequate to ask whether racism exists in policing or the justice system. The more rigorous question is: how far does it go? How much has systemic bias penetrated medical examiners’ offices, prosecutor’s discretion, judicial rulings, and jury selection?
Until we interrogate this with honesty and data, reforms will be cosmetic.
Final Thought: A Defense of Justice Begins with Surveillance from Below
In a system built to protect itself, the most powerful counterforce is community-powered oversight. Technology like GoVia doesn’t just document abuse—it redistributes power. It tells citizens: “You are not alone. Your story matters. Your life has witnesses.”
Justice doesn’t begin in the courtroom—it begins the moment a police officer says, “Come here.
That’s the moment we must safeguard. And that’s why GoVia, Highlight a Hero, and real-time legal and mental health support aren’t luxuries—they are lifelines.
Sources:
The Lancet: “Fatal police violence by race and state in the USA, 1980–2018”
Associated Press: “Audit finds dozens of deaths misclassified in Maryland”
AMA, APA Statements on Excited Delirium
https://www.ama-assn.org | https://www.psychiatry.org
GoVia: Transforming Police Accountability
Supreme Court Cases:
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
1. Misuse of “Excited Delirium” in Law Enforcement
Assumptions and Analysis:
- Assumption: “Excited delirium” is a legitimate medical diagnosis used to explain sudden deaths during police encounters.
- Reality: The term “excited delirium” lacks recognition from major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. It’s often used to justify excessive force, particularly against Black and Latino individuals.
Counterpoints:
- While some argue that “excited delirium” describes a real medical condition characterized by extreme agitation, the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria undermines its validity.
Alternative Perspectives:
- The term may reflect a need for better mental health crisis intervention training for law enforcement, rather than serving as a catch-all explanation for in-custody deaths.
2. Misclassification of Deaths in African-American and Latino Communities
Assumptions and Analysis:
- Assumption: Deaths of African-American and Latino individuals in police custody are accurately classified.
- Reality: Audits have revealed that numerous deaths were misclassified. In Maryland, for instance, an audit found that 41 deaths involving police restraints were inaccurately classified, with many attributed to “excited delirium.”
Counterpoints:
- Some misclassifications may result from systemic issues rather than intentional bias. However, the patterns suggest a need for comprehensive reform.
Alternative Perspectives:
- Implementing standardized protocols and independent reviews for in-custody deaths could enhance accuracy and accountability.
3. Systemic Racial Biases Within the Justice System
Assumptions and Analysis:
- Assumption: The justice system operates impartially, without racial bias.
- Reality: Studies indicate significant racial disparities. Black Americans are 3.5 times more likely to die from police violence than white Americans.
Counterpoints:
- While individual actors within the system may not harbor explicit bias, systemic structures and policies can perpetuate disparities.
Alternative Perspectives:
- Addressing systemic bias requires both policy reforms and cultural shifts within law enforcement and judicial institutions.
4. Role of GoVia in Promoting Accountability
Assumptions and Analysis:
- Assumption: Real-time legal and mental health support during police encounters can deter misconduct.
- Reality: GoVia offers immediate access to attorneys and mental health professionals during police interactions, potentially serving as a deterrent to misconduct and providing support to individuals in crisis.
Counterpoints:
- The effectiveness of such tools depends on widespread adoption and the willingness of law enforcement to engage with them.
Alternative Perspectives:
- Integrating such tools into standard policing practices could enhance transparency and trust between communities and law enforcement.
5. Importance of Independent Studies and Expert Testimony
Assumptions and Analysis:
- Assumption: Official reports and classifications are sufficient for justice.
- Reality: Independent studies and expert testimonies have been crucial in challenging misclassifications and highlighting systemic issues. For example, the reclassification of deaths in Maryland was prompted by concerns raised during the George Floyd case.
Counterpoints:
- While independent reviews are valuable, they should complement, not replace, systemic reforms to prevent future misclassifications.
Alternative Perspectives:
- Establishing permanent oversight bodies could institutionalize the benefits of independent reviews.
GoVia’s Take
Your exploration underscores the complex interplay between medical terminology, systemic bias, and accountability mechanisms in the justice system. While tools like GoVia show promise in promoting transparency, addressing the root causes of these issues requires comprehensive reforms, including standardized protocols, independent oversight, and cultural shifts within institutions.
Case Law References:
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989): Established the “objective reasonableness” standard for use of force by law enforcement.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985): Held that deadly force may not be used unless necessary to prevent escape and the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat.
