Communication With Mentally Ill or Intoxicated Subjects: What Actually Works
Some of the most difficult encounters in law enforcement do not involve hardened criminals or deliberate resistance. They involve individuals who are mentally ill, intoxicated, or emotionally overwhelmed. In those moments, traditional command presence alone is often insufficient. Communication becomes the primary tool for bringing the situation under control.
Over time, I learned that effective communication with impaired individuals depends less on authority and more on clarity and pacing. Officers are trained to give direct commands, and that approach remains necessary when safety is at risk. But when a subject is confused or impaired, rapid-fire commands often increase agitation rather than compliance.
Slowing the pace can change the entire encounter.
Subjects who are intoxicated or in mental distress frequently struggle to process multiple instructions at once. Simple language delivered one step at a time is more effective than complex or repeated directions. Short phrases such as “Stay right there,” “Talk to me,” or “Keep your hands where I can see them” provide structure without overwhelming the subject.
Equally important is allowing time for response. Officers sometimes interpret hesitation as defiance when it is actually confusion. A brief pause after each instruction gives the subject an opportunity to process what is being asked. Repeating the same command calmly is usually more effective than raising one’s voice or adding new instructions.
Many years ago, my partner and I were dispatched to locate a large man with obvious signs of mental illness who had an outstanding warrant. We found him sitting alone on a curb. Neither of us had encountered him before, and we did not know how he might respond to being arrested. Given his size and uncertain condition, we prepared ourselves for what could quickly become a use-of-force situation.
After discussing tactics, we chose a straightforward approach. Rather than rushing the encounter, we slowed it down. We spoke with him briefly and in a friendly manner, keeping our tone calm and conversational. When the time came, I told him simply that he would have to come with us because there was a warrant for his arrest.
He shifted his posture and looked around for several seconds. We braced ourselves, expecting resistance.
Instead, he looked up, stood slowly, and said, “Oky-doky.”
We handcuffed him and escorted him to the patrol car without incident.
That encounter stayed with me because it illustrated an important lesson. We had prepared for force, but communication resolved the situation. By keeping the exchange simple and avoiding unnecessary pressure, we gave him time to process what was happening and a clear opportunity to cooperate.
Not every encounter ends that way. Some individuals remain unpredictable despite careful communication. But when safety allows, slowing the pace and avoiding unnecessary confrontation can prevent situations from escalating into force.
Tone matters.
A calm, steady voice often reduces tension more effectively than louder or sharper commands. This does not mean abandoning authority. It means projecting control without escalating emotion. Subjects who feel overwhelmed may react defensively to aggressive tone even when the officer’s instructions are reasonable.
One of the most common mistakes in these encounters is engaging in verbal power struggles. When a subject argues, refuses minor directions, or responds emotionally, officers can feel pressure to win the exchange. Insisting on immediate compliance with every instruction may escalate the situation unnecessarily.
Not every point of resistance requires immediate confrontation. When safety allows, it is often more effective to redirect attention toward essential behaviors such as keeping hands visible or remaining in place. Focusing on the priorities of safety and control avoids unnecessary escalation.
Clarity about intent also helps reduce tension. Brief explanations such as “We want to make sure you’re safe,” or “We’re here to help you” can reassure individuals who are confused or frightened. Long explanations are rarely effective, but short statements of purpose can improve cooperation.
Training and experience both reinforce these principles. Departments that incorporate realistic scenario training help officers develop communication habits that carry into the field. Supervisors can reinforce effective techniques during after-action reviews by focusing not only on tactics but on communication.
Municipal leaders should understand that communication training is a practical investment in risk reduction. Many use-of-force incidents involve individuals whose judgment is impaired. When officers have the tools to slow encounters and communicate effectively, the likelihood of injury and escalation decreases.
No approach works in every situation. Some individuals remain dangerous or unresponsive despite careful communication. Officers must always be prepared to act decisively when safety requires it.
But in many encounters, the outcome is shaped less by force than by words.
Clear language, patient pacing, and disciplined restraint can turn a volatile encounter into a controlled one — protecting officers, subjects, and the community alike.
Bibliography
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). De-Escalation Training and Guidance for Law Enforcement Officers. Available at: https://cops.usdoj.gov
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. Available at: https://www.samhsa.gov
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Responding to Persons with Mental Illness: Training and Model Policies. Available at: https://www.theiacp.org
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). Guiding Principles on Use of Force. Washington, DC: PERF.
Compton, M., Bahora, M., Watson, A., & Oliva, J. A Comprehensive Review of Extant Research on Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Programs. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
