Why It Matters
Artificial intelligence is reshaping how police departments across the country — including in Nebraska and surrounding states — conduct investigations, write reports, and process surveillance data. Regulators and legal systems have not kept pace with the technology’s rapid adoption, raising questions about accountability, civil liberties, and the integrity of evidence in criminal proceedings.
What’s Happening
Police agencies are deploying AI tools to handle an expanding range of tasks: drafting incident reports, analyzing body camera footage, sorting through digital case files, and scanning data from surveillance networks and automated license plate readers. The capability to sift through hours of protest video in minutes has drawn particular attention from civil liberties organizations, who warn it gives law enforcement a powerful new tool for tracking individuals who attend demonstrations.
Law enforcement’s use of automated tools is not new — facial recognition, predictive policing software, and license plate readers have been in use for decades. But the current generation of generative AI expands those capabilities significantly, both in speed and scope.
Major vendors supplying AI products to law enforcement include Axon, Motorola Solutions, Flock Safety, TRULEO, Clearview AI, and Mark43. Mark43, which counts more than 300 public safety agencies among its clients, offers two AI-driven products: ReportAI, which assists officers in writing incident reports, and BriefAI, which summarizes case information. The company says dozens of agencies are currently using, testing, or evaluating those features.
By the Numbers
300+ public safety agencies are served by Mark43, one of the leading AI tool providers in the law enforcement sector.
Dozens of those agencies are actively using, testing, or evaluating Mark43’s AI-assisted reporting and case-summary products.
2 states — California and Utah — have recently enacted laws specifically regulating the use of generative AI in police report writing, mandating disclosure requirements and accuracy safeguards.
12+ states have passed some form of regulation governing facial recognition technology, drone surveillance, or automated license plate readers, though comprehensive AI oversight remains rare.
Concerns From Legal and Civil Liberties Experts
Researchers studying the intersection of technology and policing say the legal system is struggling to evaluate AI-generated evidence in real time. Cris Moore of the Santa Fe Institute described the challenge plainly: “The speed at which technologically created evidence has been adopted, and the aggression with which it’s being pushed makes it hard for the legal community to keep up.”
Civil liberties advocates have focused their concerns on applications that go beyond administrative convenience. Rachel Levinson-Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice warned that the tools risk amplifying existing surveillance capabilities: “It’s especially concerning sort of the ways that these tools could supercharge that kind of surveillance and enforcement.”
Policing and legal experts draw a distinction between AI used for administrative tasks — such as report drafting — and AI used to make judgments that affect individual rights. The latter category, which includes suspect identification and arrest recommendations, draws the strongest objections. Critics argue that hidden biases baked into AI models could skew investigations, and that the technical complexity of the systems makes it difficult for defense attorneys to challenge AI-generated evidence in court.
Zoom Out
The tension between technological capability and legal oversight is playing out nationally. California and Utah represent early attempts to legislate specifically around generative AI in policing, but those laws address a narrow slice of the broader issue. Facial recognition regulation, which is more established, still covers fewer than half of U.S. states. The patchwork nature of existing rules means that oversight varies sharply depending on jurisdiction, with some departments operating under detailed policies and others with few formal guidelines at all.
Nebraska lawmakers have engaged separately on questions of state authority and local governance — including disputes over municipal policy — as the state navigates its own regulatory landscape. The broader question of how AI intersects with public safety and civil rights is expected to surface in more state legislatures in the coming sessions.
What’s Next
State legislatures and individual police departments are still drafting the rules that will govern AI in public safety. Legal scholars expect courts to face increasing pressure to establish standards for AI-generated evidence as more cases involving such tools move through the system. Advocacy organizations are pushing for transparency requirements, mandatory disclosure to defendants, and independent audits of AI systems used in criminal investigations.