Equivalence of AI-Generated and Traditional Police Reports in Legal Context

Abstract

This article examines the legal standing of AI-generated police reports, positing that they hold the same status as traditional written reports in the context of admissibility in court proceedings. It delves into the current legal framework and judicial precedents governing the use of police reports in criminal trials, and contrasts these with the emerging technology of AI-generated reports

Introduction

The admissibility of police reports in legal proceedings is a nuanced issue, heavily influenced by cases such as Burgess v. State and statutory provisions like Florida Statutes § 90.803 (8).  These sources generally view police reports as hearsay, making them inadmissible in court. However, the advent of AI in law enforcement, particularly in the generation of police reports, raises questions about the equivalence of AI-generated reports to their traditional counterparts

Legal Background
Historically, police reports have been deemed inadmissible in court due to their classification as hearsay, as seen in Burgess v. State.  In the Burgess decision, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals, that the “...Court was not permitted to rely, as a matter of law, upon the information contained in the police report to determine whether the offenses arose from one criminal episode.” Similarly, in Buhs v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals cited Burgess, reasoning “...“information contained in police reports is ordinarily considered hearsay and inadmissible in an adversary criminal proceeding," and does not fall under any recognized exception to hearsay.”  Florida State Statute § 90.803 (8) excludes records and reports of observations by a law enforcement officer in criminal cases, unless there is a lack of trustworthiness in the officer or the record is an admissible affidavit.  The rationale is that these reports, being observations by officers, might lack reliability. Rule 803(8) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and cases such as United States v. Oates and United States v. Sallins reinforce this perspective.

AI in Law Enforcement

AI-generated police reports, created through sophisticated algorithms trained on extensive data, offer a level of accuracy and consistency potentially surpassing human-prepared reports. Florida Statute Section 119.011(12) provides a broad definition of public records, encompassing all materials made in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency, which could include AI-generated reports.

Discussion

The central argument for the equivalence of AI-generated and traditional police reports lies in their foundational purpose and method of creation. Both are official documents created as part oflaw enforcement procedures. AI-generated reports, while technologically advanced, still adhere to the same legal and procedural frameworks as traditional reports. They are a digital evolution of the same concept, not a fundamental redefinition. AI-generated reports are simply streamlining the completion process. There is no statutory requirement, either federally or at the state level, that says an officer must physically type or handwrite a report. In fact, at some agencies law enforcement officers call civilian employees and dictate the report, which is often altered by the civilian employee. In addition, it is common practice for most agencies to use templates for reports, warrants, and affidavits. Warrants and Affidavits are in fact sworn documents that are held to a higher level in the legal process than a police report, but it is culturally acceptable within the law enforcement community to use templates or “shells” for these documents . This has never been an issue as long as the affiant ensures that the information put into the template is correct.

The utilization of AI to assist in the completion of police reports, in manners such as structuring reports to a desired agency format, correcting grammar, punctuation, and spelling mistakes, and ensuring officers are not missing necessary content, are a small segment of examples in which AIcan be a stark benefit in the law enforcement field.
‍

Conclusion

The regulated implementation of AI in the production of police reports ought to be considered legally on par with, or even superior to, reports crafted through traditional methods. Their technological basis does not inherently alter their admissibility in legal proceedings, nor does it alter the memorialization of the incident being documented. With proper education and furtherance of technology, AI-based reports will become the new norm within Law Enforcement.

References
1. Buhs v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 18-10801 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2020)
2. Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2002).764 So.2d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
3.[2.] Florida Statutes § 90.803(8).
4.[3.] United States v. Oates (1977). Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

5.[4.] United States v. Sallins (1993). Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
6.[5.] Florida Statute Section 119.011(12), F.S.

‍

‍