The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which handles all prosecutions in the Seattle area, has instructed police in no uncertain terms: do not use AI to write police reports…for now. This is a good development. We hope prosecutors across the country will exercise such caution as companies continue to pedal technology – generative artificial intelligence (genAI) to help write police reports – that could harm people who come into contact with the criminal justice system.
Chief Deputy Prosecutor Daniel J. Clark said in a memo about AI-based tools to write narrative police reports based on body camera audio that the technology as it exists is “one we are not ready to accept.”
The memo continues,“We do not fear advances in technology – but we do have legitimate concerns about some of the products on the market now… AI continues to develop and we are hopeful that we will reach a point in the near future where these reports can be relied on. For now, our office has made the decision not to accept any police narratives that were produced with the assistance of AI.” We would add that, while EFF embraces advances in technology, we doubt genAI in the near future will be able to help police write reliable reports.
We agree with Chief Deputy Clark that: “While an officer is required to edit the narrative and assert under penalty of perjury that it is accurate, some of the [genAI] errors are so small that they will be missed in review.”
This is a well-reasoned and cautious approach. Some police want to cut the time they spend writing reports, and Axon’s new product DraftOne claims to do so by exporting the labor to machines. But the public, and other local agencies, should be skeptical of this tech. After all, these documents are often essential for prosecutors to build their case, for district attorneys to recommend charges, and for defenders to cross examine arresting officers.
To read more on generative AI and police reports, click here.
