Continued from previous page
The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | May 2025
individual officers, AI-generated reports may lack transparency concerning how conclusions were derived, or which data sources were prioritized. This“ black box” effect undermines efforts to hold individuals or institutions accountable for inaccuracies or bias. Moreover, ethical dilemmas appear when AI-generated content influences the behavior or beliefs of officers themselves. Officers may develop an over-reliance on AI outputs, diminishing their critical engagement with incident details— a phenomenon known as automation bias( Parasuraman & Riley, 1997), well-documented in high-stakes fields like aviation and medicine, posing similar risks in law enforcement. This could lead to a reduced scrutiny of AI-generated content, even when errors are present.
Perhaps the most concerning ethical tension lies between technological advancement and civil rights. The automation of narrative construction in police reports risks dehumanizing the individuals those reports describe. As AI systems become more prevalent, there is a growing need for law enforcement agencies to implement robust ethical oversight mechanisms, involve diverse stakeholders in technology procurement decisions, and ensure that officers remain actively engaged in the documentation process, viewing AI as a tool to assist, not replace, their own critical judgment and ethical responsibilities.
Legal Implications in New Jersey The legal ramifications of AI-assisted police reporting are particularly intricate in states like New Jersey, which has robust privacy laws and specific procedural requirements governing criminal justice operations. A central legal challenge involves the admissibility of AIgenerated reports in court. Under New Jersey Rules of Evidence 901( Authentication and Identification) and 803( Hearsay Exceptions), documentation used in legal proceedings must meet stringent standards of reliability, relevance, and authenticity. Questions arise as to whether an AI-drafted report, even when reviewed by an officer, can be considered a legitimate representation of events, particularly if the underlying AI processes are not transparent or auditable. If the AI system misrepresents a fact and that misrepresentation is used in court, the implications for due process under the Fourteenth Amendment are severe.
New Jersey law also mandates that law enforcement agencies preserve and disclose all evidence relevant to an investigation, including digital files and metadata( New Jersey Court Rule 3:13-3). This raises questions about whether the internal processes of AI platforms must be disclosed to defense attorneys— essentially requiring a degree of transparency that many proprietary AI systems are not equipped to provide. Without clear protocols, the use of AI may create legal vulnerabilities, including challenges based on the Sixth Amendment’ s Confrontation Clause, which guarantees defendants the right to cross-examine witnesses and evidence used against them. If the AI is considered a“ witness” in the creation of the report, the inability to cross-examine its algorithms poses a significant legal hurdle.
State policy must address how AI-generated reports interact with New Jersey’ s Open Public Records Act( OPRA), N. J. S. A. 47:1A-1 et seq. If AI tools generate or alter public records, there must be clarity regarding retention policies, access rights, and oversight responsibilities. As of the current date, no comprehensive legislative framework exists in New Jersey specifically regulating AI usage in this domain, leaving law enforcement agencies in a legal gray area. Until the state develops tailored legislation, the onus remains on local departments to develop policies that ensure transparency, accountability, and compliance with existing laws.
Relevant Court Cases The legal landscape surrounding AI in law enforcement is still nascent, but several cases have begun to shape the discourse, including those within New Jersey. In State v. Arteaga, 216 N. J. 602( 2014), the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the use of facial recognition technology in criminal investigations. The court ruled that prosecutors must disclose detailed information about the facial recognition software used to identify a defendant, including its source code and error rates. This decision underscores the paramount importance of transparency and a defendant ' s right to challenge the reliability of AI tools employed in their prosecution, a principle directly applicable to AI used in report generation.
Another pertinent case is State v. Higgs, 228 N. J. 21( 2017), where the New Jersey Supreme Court examined the admissibility of a detective ' s lay opinion testimony based on video footage. The court emphasized that such testimony must be grounded in the witness ' s direct perception and not merely on reviewing recordings. This ruling highlights the necessity for firsthand knowledge when interpreting evidence, a principle that could extend to AI-generated reports lacking robust human oversight and potentially raising questions about the officer ' s independent verification of AI-generated content.
In Doe v. Borough of Barrington, 72 F. Supp. 3d 445( D. N. J. 2014), the U. S. District Court in New Jersey held that a police officer violated a family ' s privacy rights by disclosing confidential health information obtained during a search. Although this case predates current AI technologies, it establishes a precedent for the protection of sensitive personal information, which is increasingly relevant as AI systems handle vast amounts of data, including potentially private details captured by body-worn cameras and incorporated into AI-generated reports. These cases collectively signal a judicial emphasis on transparency, reliability, and the protection of individual rights in the context of law enforcement technologies.
Inherent Biases in AI Systems AI systems are inherently limited by the data on which they are trained, and this presents a significant challenge within the context of law enforcement, where historical data often reflect systemic biases. For instance, if an AI system is trained on decades of police reports that disproportionately document interactions in communities of color, the AI may develop patterns that replicate and reinforce these disparities( Angwin et al., 2016). This is not merely a theoretical concern; numerous studies have proven that predictive policing algorithms and facial recognition systems exhibit higher error rates when applied to minority populations. Notably, data from the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety( 2023) indicates that Black individuals in New Jersey are disproportionately represented in arrests for certain offenses, highlighting the potential for bias in historical reporting data.
In the context of report writing, bias can manifest in the framing of events, the selection of descriptors, or the emphasis placed on
29
Continued on next page