The Milwaukee Police Department told NNS it is looking to the future with its policy on generative artificial intelligence, or AI. The department is not currently using the technology, but that could change.
One potential law enforcement use of generative AI is helping officers write police reports.
For example, Axon, the company that provides MPD’s body cameras, offers a product called Draft One, which uses body-camera audio to generate draft police reports.
Some civil rights advocates and defense attorneys say using this type of emerging technology could create problems for Milwaukeeans accused of crimes.
“You have this risk of errors and hallucinations and bias that we see a lot of large language models have, whether it’s a transcription error or if it’s a bias that’s baked into the training data sets,” said Amanda Merkwae, policy and advocacy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin.
MPD and generative AI
MPD released its policy governing generative AI in January.
Among other requirements are that AI-generated material should be considered a draft and reviewed for accuracy.
Department members should also indicate in the final work product that AI was used.
An MPD spokesperson said its Generative Artificial Intelligence Committee has met to consider a variety of AI products but is still evaluating the utility, cost, accountability and effect that those products may have on the department’s work product.
“Any onboarding of an AI product is only in the consideration phase, so have we given it thought? Yes. Are we anywhere close to implementing that (technology)? No,” the spokesperson said.
What happens at the DA’s office?
Prosecutors in the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office have considered what the use of AI technology could mean for criminal cases.
Jeffrey Altenburg, chief deputy district attorney for Milwaukee County, acknowledged risks associated with generative AI but said it could be useful with sufficient human oversight.
“It can be a helpful tool as long as it’s overseen and regulated by actual humans making actual observations and making sure that what is generated is consistent with what was intended to be,” he said.
Deputy District Attorney Matthew Torbenson said prosecutors are not expecting AI-generated reports to capture everything an officer observes.
He gave the example of a child neglect investigation, during which observations – including what a home looks and smells like, whether there is a bug infestation, whether food is available – would have to come from police officers.
“All of that has to come from the impressions of the officers that are on scene,” Torbenson said.
The what ifs
Merkwae said there are concerns about the use of generative AI that should not be ignored.
What happens, for example, if an officer’s testimony later conflicts with an AI-assisted police report?
The error could stem from AI, she said, but it could also raise questions about an officer’s credibility.
“If it was a human written report and there’s that type of contradiction that can rise to the level of a potential dishonest statement – that could land a prosecutor putting a police officer on the Brady list,” Merkwae said.
The Brady list refers to prosecutors’ records that identify law enforcement officers whose credibility issues may have to be disclosed to defendants.
Connor Romenesko, a forensic science practice coordinator with the Wisconsin State Public Defender, said AI-generated reports could create serious problems without any malice or ill intent on the part of police or prosecutors.
There could be a situation, he said, where an officer is rushed at the end of a shift, fails to adequately review an AI-generated report and a prosecutor uses that information to charge someone.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
